Letters against the smoking ban
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Let owners decide
IN RESPONSE TO the article in Wednesday’s paper, “Clean Air Advocate,” I believe that matter should be decided by the owners of the establishments, instead of a law.
I don’t know any business that a person smokes in except bars, clubs or restaurants.
Haven’t been in any bars lately, but only know of one non-smoking one and that was their “choice.”
It is “my choice” to decide what establishments I patronize.
Sandra Moore
Emporia
Stay out of my life
CITY OFFICES, county offices, hospitals, most stores, and all schools are non-smoking.
Any government entity or property should be non-smoking.
Non-smokers have to go to schools, government buildings, doctors’ offices, etc.
A bar or restaurant is different. It is a business, not supported by tax dollars but by the hard work of entrepreneurs and their workers.
Government has no business dictating to a business owner what can or cannot be consumed on their premises as long as that product is legal. Cigarettes are legal.
The government should stay out of my business and my life.
Dale Nuessen
Emporia
Plenty of choices
THERE ARE OVER 30 restaurants and at least one bar that are non-smoking in Emporia.
There are approximately 30 bars, clubs and restaurants that smoking is allowed or smoking sectioned in Emporia.
All public buildings in Emporia are smoke-free.
Does our city really need to even look at this proposed ordinance just for 30 privately owned businesses?
Name one business that people are forced to breathe secondhand smoke.
Sandy Bastin
Emporia
Tax dollars elsewhere
DARE DIDN’T WORK. Emporians for Drug Awareness isn’t working.
Stop funding EDA’s activities with my tax dollars. Put that money somewhere else to help the city budget.
Gary Burgess
Emporia
Loss of revenue
DEAR CITY COMMISSIONERS:
It’s not just bars and restaurants — it is every business in Emporia. No one will be able to light up in their privately owned business if this ban passes.
Attorneys in their private office — no way. Employees at The Gazette — no way. Our favorite undertaker in his private office — no way.
Has anyone calculated the loss of traffic and resulting tax revenues as the truck drivers sail on down the road to Beto Junction as they avoid a non-smoking Flying J?
Steven L. Corbin
Emporia
We’ve become sheep
I AM WRITING just a short note about the proposed smoking ban.
People, don’t you think we have enough laws that have been passed for our own good?
If this keeps up, someday a law will be passed so we will not be able to walk in the rain without an umbrella.
Enough is enough. If you don’t want to drink in a place where they allow smoking, leave. Believe me, if people who are trying to make money find out that they are making less money because they allow smoking, believe me, they will put a stop to it.
We have too many laws that are passed because the lawmakers believe we are too stupid to get out of the rain.
Our founding fathers would be ashamed of the sheep we’ve become.
Cal Renfro
Emporia
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
I agree crackinsack,
Let's ban field burning too. Same toxins and health hazards as all that smoke from cigarettes.
September 25, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bjohn (anonymous) says...
I'm sorry crackinsack but do you really believe that more businesses are going to want to come into a community that regulates them even more with the local laws? Why would buisnesses want to subject themselves to even more restrictions? It doesn't make any sense...not one bit.
They come for the money but the Clean Air people seem to be trying to convince us that if we ban smoking that we are going to magically increase the amount of money being spent in the community. Where is this new money comming from? Is it comming from the Clean Air supporters who have been with holding their money as punishment? If so, shame on them for not supporting local Emporia business. If not, do you honestly think that people are going to flock to Emporia to shop because of the ban? I'm sorry but it doesn't make any sense. No one from the larger surrounding cities is going to say "Let's go shop Emporia. They have clean air." Look past your hatred of the habit and be sensible.
For the record I don't smoke.
September 25, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
"It sounds like a pretty sad life; if you can't make it through an hour meal without getting your fix. Why make everyone else in the building suffer because you're not strong (or sensible) enough to kick your habit?" Crackinsack
Crackinsack, what sounds like a pretty sad life to me is that people such as yourself seem to think adults should not be allowed to make their own decisions regarding their health. Why subject yourself to 2nd hand smoke because you are not strong (or sensible) enough to avoid businesses that allow smoking?
"If you don’t like living in a clean, healthy Emporia, find some town with a 1970’s mindset. That way, we’ll have room for the rational folks (and businesses) who are looking for a NICE place to live and do business." Crackinsack
Crackinsack, if you don't like 2nd hand smoke, move to some other town that has the type of environment you want. That way, we'll have rational adults who cherish their right to choose, and you can surround yourself with like-minded people who want to take away that right to choose..
Better yet, choose to start your own nonsmoking business and see how well you do. If there is such a demand for nonsmoking establishments, you should make a fortune.
September 25, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
Did everyone read nutsaboutools' post? As I have warned over and over and over again, if this radical proposal passes, it won't be long until they are going after something else. nutsabouttools wants to next ban pasture burning. California, after banning smoking, banned trans fats in restaurants. LA has banned fast food restaurants all together in one part of the city. In each case, it was the same argument - cigarettes, smoke from pasture burning, trans fats and fast food are not good for you, and we know best what people should be able to do. Imagine if you own a fast food place in LA. If this is adopted, one of these days the police will shut J's Carryout down, and if you want a cigarette or a hamburger, you'll need a place to hide from arrest. George Orwell knew more than any of us ever thought.
September 25, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Crackinsack: You should leave the crack in the sack and stop trying to help the smoking ban proponents. Every time you submit a post on here you sabatoge their crusade for social purity. As usual, you ramble on about the evils of smoking and the presence of dirty, ignorant, smelly smokers being allowed to prowl the streets of Emporia. In the post above, you resorted to calling adults who smoke "chain smoking dullards."
Sure: this smoking ban is all about clean air and has nothing to do with prejudice against smokers, smoking, or freedom of choice. Right. And O.J. didn't do it.
September 25, 2008 at 6:23 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 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hellfirebluefish (anonymous) says...
i have no problem at all with waiting until my meal is done to light up. I dont have a problem going outside to smoke at a bar. I dont have a problem because I CHOOSE to do this. I have a problem with "big brother" trying to control my choices. They have already begun the process of taking our other rights away. I smell a protest, how bout a smoke-in....lol
September 25, 2008 at 7:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
"Oh, I try to avoid you smokers, but, since you can’t keep your habit to yourselves, I never know where you’re going to be. I suppose I could leave, but why would I when the majority wants a smoke-free town? Go ahead and choose to continue smoking; I don’t care. Just keep it away from me. Please and thank you." Crackinsack
It's very easy to avoid smoking establishments, Crackinsack. All you have to do is look for the No Smoking signs on the doors or call ahead. But I know you won't because that means you have to think for yourself for a change instead of relying on the government or some nanny group tell you how to live.
Just for the record - I don't smoke. You're welcome.
September 25, 2008 at 8:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Mr. Crack said:
"That way, we’ll have room for the rational folks (and businesses) who are looking for a NICE place to live and do business."
Apparently you don't know the people that wrote these letters. Mr. Burgess owns a business and Ms. Bastin manages it. I do not personally know the other letter writers, so I do not know if they own a business as well. However, Mr. Burgess obviously thinks it's in his business's best interest to allow smoking. That would tell me he thinks it's a "NICE place to live and do business". Just don't tell him HOW to run his business. His customers will do that with their dollars.
September 25, 2008 at 8:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
The 14th amendment to the Constitution has a little something in it called "equal protection under the law."
Therefore if this ban passes as it stands, I can smell a lawsuit against the city for the unequal penalties for those businesses who have a liquor license.Does the city have that much money they can afford defending this ban in court?
September 25, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
HOW ABOUT THIS IDEA FOR A DIFFERANT ORDINANCE?
ALL NON-SMOKERS in the city of Emporia Kansas MUST wear at all times clothing with the color of clear blue skys,(BLUE) WHEN IN PUBLIC. Smokers must keep a distance of 50 foot of anyone so dressed or be fined.
A PRIVATLY OWNED Businesses can allow smoking but anyone wearing the BLUE could not enter said business and keep at least 20 feet away. THIS WAY NO-ONES RIGHTS ARE ABUSED.
September 25, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BigE (anonymous) says...
Wow, good idea rbow, seems pretty logical. How about this, all of the smokers that HAVE to smoke inside could pool their money and buy the old Big Lots building. All of you can meet there and smoke as many cigs as possible. Make sure all doors and windows are closed. Then just bask in all the glory that the smoke, and second hand smoke has to offer. I would be willing to put in some cash to make that happen...
September 26, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Great idea BigE.
crackinsack-- I would like to thank you for providing a little insight into the mentality of those like you who support this ban. You clearly embrace this ban because you don't like smoke or smokers. It is apparent that for you it is not about health of workers or patrons. I would wager that the same is true for Walters and Sauder and the rest.
Your posts reflect that it is not about health. If it is not about health, it must be about preference and property rights. If you were a reasonable adult you would at least concede that this is about preference. Banning something because you don't like it is not good enough.
Additionally--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?
September 26, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bjohn (anonymous) says...
I'm sorry BigE but if the ban passes they won't be able to do that. They only way for the smokers to be able to carry out your plan is for you to vote "no" on the ban. I propose that you put your cash in against the Clean Air people so you can see your dream become a reality.
September 26, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
That's what I thought. What is the matter? Common sense got your tongue?
September 26, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
bjohn: your right on, I guess BigE hasn't read the ordinance because it clearly states that smoking is banned in ANY BUILDING IN EMPORIA ! THAT IS JUST AS SILLY AS MY ABOVE POST.
September 26, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BigE (anonymous) says...
Good point fellas, how bout we keep all of the details the same, except substitute a building outside the city limits, like maybe in Bluestem Hall? or Iceland? or the Arctic Circle? And, Outsider, I guess we all don't become first hand smokers because we are exercising our American, God given, freedom of choice to not smoke. Is that not O.K.? Isn't that what you keep saying this is all about? That is my "common sense", my "making my own decisions", my "ability to reason as an adult." or do you want us all to be totin' the little oxygen tanks around with us too?
September 26, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
BigE,
Since the basic position regarding the practical execution of the final solution of the Jewish [smokers] question has fortunately been established by now, and since there is a full agreement on the part of all agencies involved. I would like to ask you at the request of the Reich Marshal to make one of your specialist officials available for the necessary discussion of details in connection with the completion of the draft that shows the organizational, technical and material prerequisites bearing on the actual starting point of the projected solutions.
Reinhard Heydrich to Martin Luther of the Foreign Office, dated February 26, 1942 regarding the final "solution" to the "problem of European Jewry." Sound familiar??
September 26, 2008 at 10:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Or maybe we should declare war on Britain, and use the defeated British Navy to transport all of the American smokers to Madagascar...
September 26, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BigE (anonymous) says...
Well, I hadn't thought of Madagascar, but I guess we could use that as a compromise. Whatever we need to do. I guess that would sure cut down on the second hand smoke. Good thinkin' there josiesbar!
You still there OutsiderJ? What's the matter, common sense got YOUR tongue? Thats what I thought. (Hope you didn't spend too much time on that post).
September 27, 2008 at 1:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
BigE,
At first, vague plans were made in Nazi Germany to deport all European Jews to Madagascar. Adolf Eichmann, in particular, supported this option before the Wannsee Conference of 1942, where he was made privy to the exact details of the "Final Solution". SS chief Heinrich Himmler stated,
"However cruel and tragic each individual case may be, this method is still the mildest and best, if one rejects the Bolshevik method of physical extermination of a people out of inner conviction as un-German and impossible."[10]
The original plan was to use the Royal Navy after Britain's defeat to exile all of Europe's Jews to Madagascar. However, since the British were not defeated as anticipated by the Nazis, the Madagascar Plan had to be abandoned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_So...
September 27, 2008 at 2:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
BigE,
you missed the point. The reason that you don't all become smokers is that if you are breathing second hand smoke you are NOT smoking. You ARE being misled by the CAE folks. If SHS was the same as smoking, you would be dying for a smoke right about now. Could it be that if they are misleading you about the effects of SHS, then they are misleading you about the purpose of the ban, the ban itself, and its effects on this community. Educate yourself before you open your BigM. You might find that all those that say they are doing things for the greater good are really only serving their preferences for living, and pushing onto everyone else.
September 27, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BigE (anonymous) says...
Good history lesson there josiesbar, but I've already been through history class. Did you really look that up on wikipedia? Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to try to compare a smoking ban with Nazi Germany? Smoking ban=holocaust? Let me think about it...No.
I was also thinking of a marketing campaign for some of you that are opposed. Why don't you guys advertise free second hand smoke on your signs? Or better yet, charge people a buck or two for it. If it's really as good as you all think it is, then it should be worth something. That's just good business sense. You should really take advantage of all of this free publicity.
September 27, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BigE (anonymous) says...
O.K. OutsiderJ, maybe YOU should educate yourself before posting. There is abundant proof from multiple different agencies that document the health hazards of second hand smoke in non smoking individuals. I'm not sure if you realize this, but CAE is not the organization that made those findings. You can find ample info on the websites of the CDC, WHO, and KDHE (along with many others) that speak of the effects of SHS.
As I have stated before, debating the details of the ban is one thing, but don't try to convince others that SHS is not harmful. I think the smoke may be gettin' to ya. Again, as you so tastefully stated, "please educate yourself", clear the smoky haze around you, and get the facts before posting. Thank you.
September 27, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
BigE:
I again refer you to the front page article of Thursday August21, 2008. Just because this was a gazette article doesn't mean you can disregard it.
September 28, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BigE (anonymous) says...
rbow
please say that you are not trying to state that smoking is healthy, if you are i am going to have to disregard all of your previous and future posts. now which of us is not aware of what this debate is all about? first you all said its about property rights, then this guy chimes up and says that smoking is healty? Wow...
September 28, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
I say we boycott Josie's Bar because its owner has no regard for the Jews who were slaughtered by Hitler. To compare the proposed smoking ban to the Holocaust is just ignorant at the least.
September 28, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
And now to confuse things even further (from today's Eagle (http://www.kansas.com/business/renger...
On second thought
After less than a month of being smoke-free, Emerson Biggin's in Old Town is back to lighting up.
"Well, it didn't take but a couple of weeks to see that we were turning a lot of our business away because of the no smoking," says owner Dave Dunn.
Without smoking, Dunn expected to see a lot of minors coming in. He says there was only one he knew of.
"The influx of nonsmokers that we thought we'd see did not happen," he says.
The smokers are now returning.
"We've seen a few, and they seem very happy."
The Emerson Biggin's on Maize Road is still nonsmoking.
September 28, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"I say we boycott Josie's Bar because its owner has no regard for the Jews who were slaughtered by Hitler. To compare the proposed smoking ban to the Holocaust is just ignorant at the least."
First, I was making the comparison about how BigE wanted to deport all of the smokers so he could live in his "utopian" society to how Hitler wanted all of the European Jews deported to he could live in HIS "utopian" society. The way he described it is eerily similar.
Second, you don't come in ANYWAYS! How are you going to boycott a place you don't go to in the first place?
BigE, you said why don't I charge people a buck or two for second hand smoke? What do you think a cover charge is? Most bars in town DO charge for "second hand smoke" and people are willing to pay it. Not only that, they are willing to wait in line for almost an hour to pay for the chance to breathe second hand smoke.
September 28, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Matt: You're wasting your valuable time trying to reason with Biggie and Nosey. It is impossible to reason with unreasonable people, especially those so blind because they refuse to see.
September 28, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
BigE
Mark Twain has an interesting quote about statistical evidence. Most of the SHS evidence is statistical so here goes. "Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable."
The point being whoever is paying for the study usually sees the results they want. I could provide you with numerous studies saying it is not a problem. Most notably from the British Journal of Medicine, who followed smokers and second hand smokers for more than 30 years and found little or no evidence that SHS hurt anyone.
I have never said second hand smoke is not harmful. I have said that it is too soon to tell, too many conflicting reports, not enough long term study, and that many people tout its hazards not because they are concerned about health, but because it serves their purpose.
The thing about rights BigE is that if you let people take them from you today. You WILL find yourself giving them away tomorrow.
September 28, 2008 at 1:03 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 1:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BigE (anonymous) says...
Outsider, so who pays for the studies conducted by the CDC, WHO, and KDHE? Are you stating that we shouldn't put much stock in the results of studies, and then you immediately refer to a study in th British Journal of Medicine?
How do you disregard all of the studies that find a result you don't want to hear, then quote one study that says SHS may or may not be harmful? Either you believe study results or not. Which is it?
The numerous other studies you mention weren't conducted by Bjnemp were they? Because he says all of the studies conducted by these organizations have been proven invalid, but somehow failed to mention the source of his information.
September 28, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BigE (anonymous) says...
My mistake Bj, you did not say that. My apologies. It was rbow.
So was it rbow that conducted all of those other studies you mention Outsiderj?
September 28, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BigE (anonymous) says...
josiesbar, are you saying the cover chg. is for SHS? So if the ban passes, there will be no more cover charge?
SWEET!
September 28, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
I was using the British Medical Journal as an example of a study that said it was harmless. I don't put much stock in it, just wanted to shed a little light on where I am coming from.
There needs to be a lot more agreement in the scientific and medical community before we consider a ban based on the premise of a health issue. A ban is premature on it's face, to say the least, due to the lack of consistent infomation on the effects of SHS. That is essentially what I am saying.
Regardless of studies and figures and "facts", the most important thing to remember that this is not about health and never has been. It is about abridging and destroying the rights of property owners to promote an agenda of bias and preference.
I doubt any of these clean air advocates have ever talked to a bartender or waitress or bar owner or bus boy and asked them what they want from their employers. Or what THEY think is best for THEM in the work place. They assume that they know what is best for these people. They live under the impression that since they don't like smokers, smoke, cigarettes, or SHS that no one else should like it either. Then they dress it up in the ribbons and bows of a health issue, which can't even be agreed upon by various scientific communities (I would refer you to a great article by the gazette involving a chemical engineer that has a well rounded view of this subject.)
Finally, they attempt to do an end around the democratic process and ram it down our throats without a vote. That is why it is unAmerican, that is why it is elitist, and that is why if they succeed in pushing us all down this slippery slope, we will all be sorry when they come up with their next ban, and it may be something we ALL enjoy, or a freedom we ALL hold dear.
September 28, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"josiesbar, are you saying the cover chg. is for SHS? So if the ban passes, there will be no more cover charge?
SWEET!"
There's at least one person who won't be boycotting the place... and by the way, I will probably have to increase cover to make up for all of the revenue lost by this smoking ban...
September 28, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BigE (anonymous) says...
josiesbar,
If the cover chg. is for SHS, and there is no more SHS, why the increased cover chg.? Are you gonna post the ad about SHS on your sign out front or not? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to tell you what to do, or infringe on your rights, just wondering...
Also, you are right about me not boycotting the place. If this ban passes I'm gonna need my own stool just like Norm on cheers! you can count on me josiesbar!
September 29, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )