Kudos to Clean Air
Andrew McHenry, Emporia
Thursday, September 25, 2008
IT SEEMS LIKE every category of rights has a group that tries to carry them into excess.
Free speech advocates have defended everything from child pornography to funeral picketers’ harassment. Property rights zealots in some communities have allowed dilapidated homes to become dangerous nuisances. Church-state separation activists have attempted to stop prison ministries that reduce recidivism. And the list goes on and on. This is a byproduct of living in a culture that’s more concerned with rights than responsibilities.
Now there are business rights zealots who are attempting to stop the proposed smoking ordinance. This begs the question: What about the people whose health they are endangering? This is relevant since having a no-smoking section in a restaurant is like having a no-peeing section in a swimming pool.
Our country took all kinds of actions after the Sept. 11th attacks killed around 4,000 Americans. Compare that to the 440,000 smoking-related deaths that happen each year in our country, coupled with the $92 billion a year it costs us. The economic and moral interests are both on the side of this ordinance, and I commend those who are lobbying for it.
Newsie (anonymous) says...
Not to worry. I am sure those pro-smoking business owners will use their profits to cover the cost of smoking-related deaths.
September 25, 2008 at 4:54 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 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
I guess I'm missing something here. It has been proclaimed by the "Clean Air" commandos thoughout the debate on the proposed smoking ban that this was NOT a crusade against smokers or smoking. Theresa Walters herself said that.
The proponents of the ban have said repeatedly that the ban was about health, clean air, and SECONDHAND SMOKE, not smoking or smokers. The astute and observant opponents have contradicted that contention. They see the ban as a clear and direct attack on smokers, smoking, and the rights of business owners.
Mr. McHenry's comments seem to validate the anti-ban group's fears. Not once did he mention second-hand smoke or the number of deaths allegedly caused by second-hand smoke. Instead, Mr. McHenry cites statistics on smoking and smokers. Why? 1.) There are absolutely no statistics proving even one verified death in the U.S. from second-hand smoke and 2.) Because this ban is wrapped in sheep's clothing as a concern for health but the wolf inside is actually attacking all smokers, smoking in general (a legal activity), and the rights of business owners and private citizens.
The comment by Newsie just below the editorial reveals the same biased wolf. She attacks "pro-smoking business owners", their hard-earned profits, and "the cost of smoking-related deaths."
Again, I must be missing something here. We have been told repeatedly by Ms. Walters, Ms. Sauders, and the socially superior supporters of this "clean air" initiative that they have no intention of attacking smokers or smoking, just second-hand smoke and the "deadly" result of same.
The comments by Mr. McHenry and Newsie strongly suggest otherwise. Their words prove this proposed ultra-restrictive ban is an elitist attack on smoking, smokers, and individual rights.
Be wary, Emporia. If you let this small group of self-perceived socially superior reformers bully this ban into law you will be opening a door you may never be able to close. What would they target next and attempt to legislate in "your best interest?" Smoking in your own home? The books and magazines you read? The foods you eat? How you dress? Personal hygiene?
Wake up, Emporia. You are being patronized and bullied. Fight back or live with the consequences.
September 25, 2008 at 6 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 6:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
So go smoke-free and the ban won't "target" you.
September 27, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
newsie: Why don't you buy Josies bar and you can go smoke free and "live" with the choice of YOUR DECEISION? Have you even read the proposed ordinances? If not please go to KVOE's web site to the news tab and click.Then read BOTH proposed ordinances THEN COME BACKHERE, and logically debate which one is the better of the two.
September 27, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
The truth is, I don't care what you put in your lungs. IF you want to die the horrible death that smoking brings, then that is your choice.
However, I choose not to die such a death. I choose to breathe air as clean as possible, recognizing that there is no such thing as truly clean air. I choose that my children not be exposed to second-hand smoke. When they turn 18, the choice is theirs.
If the bars, restaurants and any other businesses want to go smoke-free, then they will have my business. Anyone that chooses the alternative will not. Will that put them out of business? Not hardly.
Honestly, though, this never really was about profits. Take a look at the other cities in Kansas that have passed smoking bans. MOST businesses are doing well. The others, I suspect, were struggling to begin with. For that matter, If I were a bar owner, or owner of any other business, and the survival of my business depended on whether patrons were allowed to smoke, THEN I would be worried.
Heck, now that Village Inn has gone smoke-free, I have to wait for a table. I used to be able to walk right in and be seated. To quote the manager, "We should have done this a long time ago." His biggest concern, he said, was getting the tobacco smoke stains off the ceiling.
September 27, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
Rbow: I have read both proposed ordinances several times. Neither serves the common good. However, both are a beginning toward a compromise that we can all live with (note that I did not say the word "like."
September 27, 2008 at 9 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
NEWSIE: If you have read both proposals you will note that CAE'S states they want the ban passed "as is." There is a 2 page letter saying what THEY will accept. The proposal from EMPORIA OPEN FOR BUSINESS has no such restrictions given to our City Commissioners. While some in this group are open to compromise, others are not as they have seen Ban after ban revisited and made more restrictive with time. It is called a slippery slope. Why wouldn't a smoking allowed sign take care of your problem?
September 27, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
I want this to come to a vote. I also want the gazette to print a story saying how the elected "servants of the people" vote.
September 27, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Newsie,
"So go smoke-free and the ban won't "target" you."
Are you kidding me? What kind of elitist crap is this? Really? WOW! I don't even know what to say to this. This is one of the most arrogant, obtuse, insulting, and scary passages I have ever read!
I'm REALLY glad Village Inn is doing good now that they have gone smoke free. The ONLY thing Josie's and Village Inn have in common is that we are businesses. That is IT! We are a college dance club that serves alcohol only. They are a restaurant that only serves food. How can you possibly compare the two?
You stated "If I were a bar owner, or owner of any other business, and the survival of my business depended on whether patrons were allowed to smoke, THEN I would be worried."
NO (expletive deleted) KIDDING! Almost to a T, every bar owner and manager I have talked to from around the WORLD, has said that the first year after a smoking ban, their profits are down anywhere from 20% to 50%. Let me put that in a real world perspective (side note--the ECC is NOT the real world). 20% means I become good friends with ramen noodles. 50% and I lock the door for good.
Your whole theory of "Just comply and there won't be any problems" SERIOUSLY disturbs me!
You are correct, this debate was never about profits. It was about business rights. That is why your statement scares me so much. This proposed ban has absolutely nothing to do with clean air whatsoever, as again proven by ANOTHER proponent.
September 27, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
As an aside, if I thought going non-smoking would increase profits, I would have already done so. My business is run based off what I feel will be the most conducive to my patrons. I had quite a few people come to me and say they wanted Bud Light Lime. Guess what, I now stock Bud Light Lime, and it sells very well. I have never had anyone come to me and tell me they think I should go non-smoking because of the second hand smoke problem. If I had a large group of people tell me they wanted this place to be smoke free, I would re-examine our smoking policy here. If I were to venture a guess, I would say you have never been here, and have no idea if we have a problem with second hand smoke or not.
As far right now, I am going to remain a smoking establishment, if for no other reason than to urinate in your Cheerios, and I have every right to do so.
Matt Slater
Owner-Josie's
September 27, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
Of course they want the ban passed as is. And the city is under no obligation to do so.
And, as I said, I don't care what you put in your lungs or what you put in your customer's lungs. Just don't do it around me or the people I care about. I'll be happy to support your right to allow smoking in your bar if you can guarantee encounter smokers in the public places I visit.
As far as the "elitist crap," I am just presenting an option -- and by no means the only option (by the way, you should look up the word obtuse (how is that for elitist?)).
I've talked to a few bar owners in Lawrence and elsewhere, but certainly not from "around the world (really, Josie, you expect us to believe that)." They report business is good with only a few strategic adjustments to gain back any business.
Josie, I respect you as someone who is willing to take a chance and open a business. I know your bar is on the decline (don't take my word, ask your customers, especially my fellow college students). The truth is, if you don't regulate yourself on issues such as second-hand smoke, government will do it for you. It's knocking at the door, Josie.
September 27, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
Honestly, folks, is there anything left to be said by any side of this issue? Seems to me we are just repeating ourselves.
You want to kill the ban -- get organized and rally the troops.
You want to support the ban -- get organized and rally the troops.
Whatever you do, voice your opinion to the city to put this thing to a vote...THEN VOTE.
It is time for action, folks.
September 27, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Newsie--
You may not know this, but if the CAE has their way, there will be no vote on this issue. It will just be inacted by the city commission. Their reasoning is that other communities didn't vote on their smoking ban, so we shouldn't have to either.
I suspect the reason is that they are less likely of losing if we don't vote. Then they can keep all of their grant money and bask in the smug self satisfaction that comes with forcing your so called morally superior lifestyle on people.
If you want it to come to a vote, then at least their may be hope for you yet.
At least CAE hasn't managed to entirely brainwash everyone who supports the ban.
September 27, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
Newsie: You can be absolutely assured that OutsiderJ is correct in his statements that the strategy of The Clean Air Central Committee is to get this ordinance adopted by the City Commission without a public vote. That is why it is so important for the Commissioners to hear from us.
You are correct that the arguments have been made on both sides. A part of me agrees with you that there is no point in further making those arguments because the opponents have clearly made a more convincing case. However, given that The Clean Air Central Committee will be able to fund a campaign with a government grant (which stinks badly) and the opponents must raise private money, I think that it is important for the opponents to make their points over and over. If the Commission sends this to a vote, The Clean Air Central Committee will use government money to have large display ads in the paper every night and 30 second spots on KVOE every 15 minutes. This issue is a defining moment in the great American experiment in democracy and whether it will last. It is too important to rest on our laurels.
September 27, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"I've talked to a few bar owners in Lawrence and elsewhere, but certainly not from "around the world (really, Josie, you expect us to believe that)."
Yes.
http://www.nightclub-business.com/forum
This is Nightclub and Bar Magazine's online forum, with bar owners from all over the US, Canada, Mexico, Russia, China, India, Laos, Poland, Finland, Germany, France, the UK, Ireland, and many others.
September 27, 2008 at 5:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
AND HERE WE GO!
If being smoke free is so profitable for business, how come the bartenders at the only smoke-free dance club in town were at my club before 1:15 after shutting down for the night due to lack of business? On a Saturday night. That was an ESU home game. When we were at capacity before midnight. Somebody?
September 28, 2008 at 4:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Hey Matt; You can only hope that other bar will remain a non-smoking establishment and not change back to smoking allowed. It will be good for business. Let's count the days of their experiment before they change back to smoking allowed.
September 28, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
I believe they went smoke free about 3 weeks ago. So in 3 weeks, they went from being packed on Saturdays to empty, and CAE wants me to believe a smoking ban will INCREASE business? Come on now!
September 28, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
josiesbar: Their problem is one of two things: Either they are so elitist in their outlook that they think that the rest of us are not capable of thinking for ourselves and thereby believe that we will accept that outrageous statement as a fact, or, they have no understanding of how the business market works and that businesses would have gone nonsmoking long ago if it would generate more income. I think that it's both. They are looking down their noses at us with a superior, I know what's best for you attitude. Ironically, they are the ones who don't understand American freedoms or the subtle, but extremely important, issues at play in this debate.
September 28, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Jayhawker,
You are dead on (as usual). These people don't have a clue!
September 28, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
I was proud and amazed to see 2 full page ads in the Weekend Gazette. I applaud the efforts of Emporia's business owner's. Those of us for and against the ban can talk and argue until we are blue in the face, but I can't help thinking that our opinions don't quite have the weight of the opinions that this tyrany will effect the most
September 28, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )