Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good for you Joan! I am glad someone from out of town agrees with us. Of course you know some of these silly laws have a way of creeping up north. Hope you don't have to fight this with your city hall.

Posted by Paccifier (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is there a risk that, if Teresa Walters is elected to the County Commission, the entire county may have to deal with this issue?

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Paccifier,

Yes.

Posted by BigE (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope so, in fact, I wish it would be state wide and not just local. Burning pastures, blacktop on roads, and driving vehicles all serve a purpose. What purpose does smoking serve? Besides, the clean air campaign is not focused on banning smoking, its aimed at eliminating it in places where others may be exposed to second hand smoke.
Good job Clean Air Emporia!

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well written Joan. I admire your admiration and respect for freedom.

Big E-- I bet you hope they ban everything you don't like. You clearly don't think of this as a health issue but one of preference or you wouldn't use statements like, "What purpose does smoking serve?"

If its not about health then as I have said many times it is about property rights. Rights that are among the oldest and most sacred in this country. To cheer for them being taken away is about as unAmerican as you can get. Use your brain and your freedom to frequent one of the 30+ smoke free eateries/bars in Emporia and leave the hardworking business owners of all businesses in Emporia alone.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

According to the EDA website, the week of March 10th was Brain Awareness week. No, I am not making this up.

MUST......NOT......MAKE.......IMMATURE........JOKES.........

Posted by create (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Very good commentary, Joan, particularly the part about the Air Queens getting tobacco tax money " trying to ban cigarette smoking on the pretense of “Clean Air.”"

Now we need to make a demand of our own -- show us what you did with almost a hundred thousand dollars, ladies. Some spent on Hubby Steve's radio station? Hey, it's allowed.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BigE: What purpose smoking serves to the individual who chooses to do so is none of your concern. It is a legal activity and is supported and subsidized by the federal government.

I suspect you haven't read the entire smoking ban proposal, BigE. If you had, you would see that this ban is indeed focused on banning smoking, punishing smokers, and attempting to eliminate the rights of business owners. You are either brain-washed, on the payroll, deluded, very unhappy and bitter, or void of common sense if you think What-I-Want Walters and her misled matrons are seeking "clean air" and not waging war on the inferior societal trash who choose to smoke.

Name me one place in Emporia, BigE, where you or anyone else is forced to be exposed to second hand smoke. Go on. "I triple dog dare ya". All public buildings, offices, and businesses in town are already smoke-free. 30 of the 37 restaurants in town are already smoke-free. Most bars aren't, but bars don't exactly promote themselves as health clubs to begin with. You always have a choice... at least for now. If this jackboot joke of a ban passes, that ability to choose disappears.

You are advocating the legislation of social and moral values and the erosion of individual rights. Did you ever serve in the military and risk your life to protect and preserve the freedoms upon which our nation is founded? I suspect not. Otherwise you wouldn't be working so hard to destroy those freedoms.

Choose choice. Choose individual rights. Choose common sense. Fight the CAE smoking ban.

Posted by momoftwo (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The majority of people commenting on the smoking ban stories have seen & read the proposal. For those that haven't, it is posted on kvoe.com, click on the News link. However, if you read the proposal, please make sure you also read the document that spells out provisions that Clean Air Emporia will not agree to. Anyone who reads this can immediately tell they don't want smoking allowed anywhere & if they had their way, I'm sure they would make smoking illegal all together! (and, in case anyone is wondering,,,,,,I am NOT a smoker. I'm an American who believes in the freedom of choice & the rights of business owners)

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks, momoftwo. I'm not a smoker, either. In fact, I don't like being around it. I wish that nobody smoked. I wish that all business owners, on their own, would decide to not allow smoking in their establishments. But this is America, and I have personally seen countries where there is no freedom. I can't believe that Americans would voluntarily surrender one of their most basic rights, the right to control their own property. Once that right is surrendered, it will never be back. Do not be fooled, that is the true issue in this debate.

Posted by sunshine (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't understand this concept of "Clean Air Emporia". If we ban smoking from restaurants and bars the air we breathe in Emporia won't be any cleaner. It will be the same ol air we breathe now.
I don't understand making something that is legal into something that will be punishable by law.
I don't understand people who are OK with having government step into our lives to tell us what we can or can not do. These people that are ok with it are only because it is something that suits them. If the ban being passed was about something that they wanted to do they would all be arguing that the government has no right to tell them what to do.
I don't understand making every single public place (restaurants and bars) non smoking. Why is it ok for non smokers to claim every place as theirs (except for individual homes) and not ok for smokers to have a few places that is theirs?
Why is it that there is so much effort put into an ordinance banning smoking from all public places and so little effort being put into some of the other unhealthy things that go on everyday? How about if someone puts some effort into eliminating the gangs in this town? or the drug activity in this town? or stopping the guy that squeals his tires and speeds down my road every single morning and every single night? or stopping the littering of the streets (I find a large amount of trash in my yard and at the curb about every other day that was not put there by my family)? or eliminating the stray dogs and cats in this town?
I just can't get on board with this ordinance. I'm all for helping people be healthy, but this is over the top.
I'm guessing that there are a few people that have whined about cigarette smoke when they went into a bar or restaurant, but I'm also guessing that these are the very people that whine about every little thing that comes along. I have lived here for six years now and I just have not encountered so much cigarette smoke in any place I've been in that I felt that it was offensive. Where I lived before I can't remember there being any place that was actually a non-smoking establishments. People there had a reason to gripe and complain. There needs to be some places that are non-smoking establishments, but I don't see any reason to make them all non-smoking except to suit the few who think that the world should revolve around them.

Posted by Free4all (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have seen the question of "Name a place that cig. smoke is a problem" hundreds of times and yet supporters of this bill get on here claiming that it is for OUR good but no one will answer it. Is it a difficult question? Is it too hard to say just one place that it is so thick that you just cant stand it? What the hell is the point of this stupid ban if there ISN"T A PROBLEM! Sounds more like a vindictive bill aimed at bar owners. Isn't there a saying of "DON'T TREAD ON ME" and a symbol of a rattle snake coiled and poised to strike that stands for AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE? I believe Ben Franklin had something to do with it. Sounds like this is a great fit to the oppressive people in charge of this ban. But I am going to ask again and would like a few different places listed. WHERE IS THE SMOKE SO THICK AND HEAVY THAT YOU CAN'T SEE THROUGH IT OR THAT IS HARD TO BREATH? Again it won't be answered but would like to see where the problem is so I can understand why all the hype.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Create, that's her exe hubby I believe. Ask around, I'm sure someone remembers what was being said happened there.

Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I have seen the question of "Name a place that cig. smoke is a problem" hundreds of times and yet supporters of this bill get on here claiming that it is for OUR good but no one will answer it."

Asked and answered several times by several people on several different forums related to this issue. Second-hand smoke does not exist just in bars and a few restaurants. It is everyone that smoker light up.

"If its not about health then as I have said many times it is about property rights."

And government "intrusion" on private business does not already exist? Think again.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 26, 2008 at 11:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Newsie: What are YOU smoking?!! You wrote:

"It is everyone that smoker light up."

Whoa! If EDA wants to really do their job they might want to send a drug sniffing dog to Newsie's trailer. I'm guessing the air may not be too clean in there.

Posted by BigE (anonymous) on September 27, 2008 at 1:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So I'm still not clear on this Bj, what purpose was it that smoking serves?

Also, rbow, you state that the evidence quoted from the World Health Organization has been proven invalid by other sources. Who would those other sources be? I would assume those other sources are not you. I mean if a group of scientists conduct extensive research and come up with certain findings, you can't just say "I don't think so" and count that as "other sources".

Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on September 27, 2008 at 2:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, BJ, that I confused you. The second-hand smoke got to me. Should have said:

It is everywhere that smokers light up.

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 27, 2008 at 5:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A new study has found scientist's to cause cancer in lab rats. The lab rats would have just been fine if not for the scientists getting involved.

My point, The people who are "smarter" and "more powerful" do not always make the right choices for the little guy.

Stay away from my smoke and I'll not blow any up your ........

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 27, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BigE: You asked, "So I'm still not clear on this Bj, what purpose was it that smoking serves?"

I guess it serves the same purpose as one enjoying a cold beer or mixed drink. Or someone eating a bag of chips or a candy bar. Or solving a crossword puzzle or bird watching. Or sitting on the front porch watching the world go by.

The point---which was apparently too complex for you to absorb the first time---is that when a responsible adult makes a personal choice to use their time, their money, and their body to partake of a legal product, it is none of your damn business why they do it or what personal need it fulfills. Who made you the community conscience and ultimate judge of who does what and when?

Get a life, BigED. Mind your own business and stop throwing tiny little stones at glass houses.

Posted by BigE (anonymous) on September 27, 2008 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The difference Bj, simple little fella, is when those choices affect others it is no longer just a personal choice. I explained this to my 3 year old boy and he understood it right away. That's not a good sign for you since it still seems to be flying right over your head. It's starting to sound like this entire discussion is a bit too complex for you. Like I said earlier, I could care less if you smoke or not. Toke it up til your blue in the face, you can't finish a sentence without one of those smokers coughing fits, and are unable to walk from your car into Wal-Mart without losing your breath. Whatever you desire. In fact, what say you stay on your property, smoke all the cigs you can, and stick to the simpler things that may be more your speed, like bird watching, or crossword puzzles. Have a nice day!

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 27, 2008 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For some, it seems that the fact that this debate has nothing to do with smoking is lost. I don't smoke. I don't like being around it. I chose to go where I can sit in a no smoking section, or avoid the business altogether. It is the proponents who attempt to make the debate a class war between the smokers and the nonsmokers, the elitist and the commoners. This debate is rooted in freedoms unknown to those without status until the great American experiment in personal liberty started 200 years ago. One of those basic freedoms is the right to own, control and use for a profitable purpose privately held property. Now, we have a group who neither understands the debate nor cares about this great experiment. They have a solution where no problem exists. Their mission is to acquire power and control over the citizenry, especially those uppity business people who put their property to profitable use in a way that they disagree with. They will have none of it, and will resort to using the Police Department to enforce their power over others. George Orwell was a prophet who no one listened to. I hope that it is not too late.

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 27, 2008 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BigE, you said "In fact, what say you stay on your property, smoke all the cigs you can"
I think this is what Property owners are asking, that they be left alone on thier Own Property to do as they please as long as it is legal. They (property owners) do not want someone like yourself telling them what they can do and cant do on thier Own Property. They dont what the City or the people who want the ban telling them what to do on Thier Own Property. You do not have to go on Thier Property, this seems pretty simple to me.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 27, 2008 at 10:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BigE: Your childish personal attack upon me makes you look weak, immature, and seriously lacking in social skills, intelligence, and education. It also makes you totally void of credibility. You have no clue what this debate is actually about.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on September 27, 2008 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Big E;
It seems that you and the rest of the clean air advocates have lost the rationale that this is not simply about smoking and not smoking, the ability to enter a business that allows smoking or for that matter, if you like smoking, some one who smokes or not, the simple matter of fact is, you and the other clean air advocates are trying to take away citizen or citizens of this countrys' right to freedom of choice, guaranteed to them by the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, period and that is the whole crux of this smoking ban fiasco and if you would read and understand the three documents I mentioned above, you will learn that certain rights and freedoms are guaranteed to American citizens and cannot be taken away or threatened to be deprived to them by any government entity, individual or group of individuals, in other-words, it is UnConstitutional for any government entity or individual person to take away from or deprive any U.S. citizen his or her guaranteed right to freedom of choice, etc.
Therefore what is trying to be done by the clean air advocates is much more serious than just simply ban smoking because some one wants to visit a business but says they can't because it is a smoking establishment, these crusaders are simply trying to deprive individuals of their freedom of choice, which is a Constitutional issue.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think we should have bigE argue for all against this ban. Above he states as long as "you stay on your own property smoke all the cigs you can." Sounds like we convinced him on the "Private Property Rights" aspect of this ban.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BigE: I also refer you to gazette article (front page) published on August 21, 2008.

Posted by BigE (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You do have a constitutional right to smoke if you so choose. That is not up for debate. I have stated several times that i really DO NOT CARE. Nobody is trying to save you from yourselves.

Is there a moral aspect to this debate that has not been addressed? If it's legally acceptable, does that also guarantee that it is morally acceptable? Just a thought. You know at one time it was perfectly legal to drive under the influence of alcohol. Was it the right thing to do at the time because it was not illegal? If I'm on my own property do I have the right to drive under the influence? Is it legal or not? What if I run over somonevwhile driving under the influence on my own property? If I post a warning sign at the front of my property does that make it OK? It is my property you know. I understand that these 2 issues are not exactly the same, but it's just an example and they do share some similarities. Both have the potential to cause harm to others.

Jayhawker, I think it is a gross oversimplification to think that if it's a private owned business, that you can do as you please. The multitude of current laws that govern business are put there to protect the public as well as the best interest of the business owner, even if the owner may disagree with them. There is an obvious difference between an individuals home and an individuals business that serves the public. And so far in this debate, the only labels of elitist, Nazi, uppity and commoners have been put there by the opponents.

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

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...

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wherever we look, government fails at what we want, and succeeds only in
finding new ways to interfere with our lives.
Once upon a time government budgets were balanced, our money was
sound, the cities were safe, and the taxes of federal, state, and local governments
combined took less than 10% of our income.
Where did it all go wrong? Wasn’t government supposed to be our servant,
rather than our master? Wasn’t government supposed to help only those who
can’t help themselves — rather than benefiting politicians, lobbyists, and (social
reformers?)
What happened to the idea that government should do for the people only
what they cannot do for themselves?
This is a far cry from what the founding fathers had in mind — a
government instituted among men to secure the blessings of life, liberty, and
property.
What Changed?
No plague descended upon America to halt progress and plunge us into a
world of violent crime, poor education, and big government.
So how did it happen? What transformed America from the land of the free
into the land of high taxes — from the land of prosperity into the land of debt
and bankruptcy — from the land of opportunity to the land of quotas and
lawsuits — from the land of free enterprise to the land of regulations, mandates,
and government inspectors?
The decline of America has been caused by politicians and ((reformers who
believe that you aren’t competent to run your own life)), that they know better how to spend the money you’ve earned, that they understand which products you
should be allowed to buy and what wages and job benefits are suitable for you.
To run your life for you, they have created a government that fails at
everything it undertakes, but wants to undertake everything.
The “American dream” has become a mirage for too many of us.
And to make matters worse, government has grown too large and too bold.
It routinely tramples on our property and our liberties.

I’m am saddened by what American is becoming and here we are right in the middle of it debating yet another freedom being taken away.
Just Say No to this Ban Monday Night

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BigE;
I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you and saying that smoking is healthy, but you seem to be missing the real issue of this ban and the issue is simply the beginning of the loss of certain freedoms, rights and freedom to choose guaranteed to every individual in this country by the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution that were set down in writing by our founding fathers in the three most important documents to every individual in this country.
The issue is when you start taking away a persons guaranteed freedom of choice, be it an individual freedom to choose or an individual business owners freedom to choose how to run his business, and continuing to give the government and certain individuals more involvement in dictating what freedom of choice you may have you are starting down an irreversable path to eventual loss of everyones freedom of choice, such as your freedom of choice to not like smoking or anyone who smokes, your choice to say smoking is unhealthy, etc.. Where does it all end ? When no-one has any freedoms left at all ? It is unhealthy to put sugar in your coffee, it has been shown unhealthy to talk for prolonged times on your cellphone, it is unhealthy to be exposed to electro-magnatic fields emitted by electrical lines for long periods of time, are we going to ban everything someone thinks is unhealthy, where does it end ?
Eventually someone is going say to themselves, hey you know I don't think that what BigE is doing is particularly healthy, I think I will suggest that the City ban what ever it is BigE is doing that I think is unhealthy. The point I am trying to make is, that once you start, what seems to be a small insignifican snow-ball down a steep hill, it grows and grows eventually into something uncontrolable.
Also I may be wrong, but the whole issue seems to me, to be that some people don't like smoking, yet there is evidently a business or bussinesses in town that they want to go to, but will not because that business or businesses allow smoking and they are ticked off, so now they are going to try and punish one or more businesses and people by suggesting a public smoking ban.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

P.S.
What time is the meeting Mondy night and is it in the little theatre ?
I am planning on definately being there, even though I don't smoke (anymore), but this is more than just a smoking or not smoking issue.
By the way I am anonymous on the forum but at the meeting I will be the old codger with a cane.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it might be a duck. The following is a quote from BigE's last post:

"The multitude of current laws that govern business are put there to protect the public as well as the best interest of the business owner, even if the owner may disagree with them."

In the same post, BigE denied that he and the other proponents are elitists.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bigE
did you even read the article I refered you to? no-where in it did anyone say it is healthy to smoke. The Dr. just said that there are no definitive studies that can prove 2nd hand smoke is deadly.As this proposed ban from CAE states it is all about health, it shows it is not. It is about our freedom of choice to use a legal product or allow its use on our private property.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BigE is the anti-smoking ban committee's best friend. His venomous tirades against smokers proves the attempt to force the freedom-eroding smoking ban upon Emporians is not a crusade, it is a vendetta.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BigE: You wrote:

"And so far in this debate, the only labels of elitist, Nazi, uppity and commoners have been put there by the opponents."

Really? Among the labels I have seen on here from you and your socially superior elitist friends are: "smelly", "Stinking", "foul", "rude", "selfish", "nasty", "ignorant", "morons" and, my favorite, "chain smoking dullards". And the list goes on and on.

That sounds pretty elitist and uppity to me!

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The meeting is at 7;00 pm on monday. little theater be there and tell your friends. Our rights are on the line!

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 12:25 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 12:45 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 12:58 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 1:20 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I apologize about my last post. I'm afraid that I got carried away. I learned a long time ago that reasonable people can look at a set of facts and come away with opposite conclusions. However, it absolutely floors me that this group apparently cannot see what its proposal does to cherished rights, which, once surrendered, will never return. I've written about the slippery slope. Obviously, we started down that slope years ago, an argument used by several proponents of the ban (when they write such things as business is already completely regulated, etc., so what's different with this proposal). We must draw the line somewhere; otherwise, in 50 years we will be no different than Stalinist Russia. Is that so hard to see? Once we strip away private property rights with this ban, then it's easy to move to the next ban that suits the powerful. We are headed down a very dangerous path. This path may look inviting to you today, but a few years down the way, it may come after you. In your older years, you may look back on this, as I look back on Orwell's book, and realize that you should have stood up, you should have sounded the alarm, you should have done what you could to save our precious freedoms. My Dad had a saying: You don't appreciate water until the well goes dry.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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.

Posted by BigE (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker, I don't think of myself in any of those ways. I'm not better than the next guy, don't think that i'm God, and don't believe that everything I do and say is right.I'm not arrogant, or elitist, but I know I can be rude. I don't see things the way you do, but I have a strong belief in this cause. I understand some of the issues that you all have with the proposal. I don't see it as un-american. I wish there was no need for laws or government in this issue, but I also believe that this proposal can provide many benefits. It's not perfect. If nothing else I think it will make people think about the issue, whether they are for it or not. If it could be done without government that would be great.

I'm not sure how my earlier statement about the numerous laws governing business make me an elitist. I didn't make those laws, don't enforce them, and don't agree with all of them. Just stating my opinion as to why they are there.
different people, different views

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BigE;
After going back and reading some of the posts you have written, one particular one jumped out at me, it is the one on Sept. 27th, 2008 at 6:57 p.m., this particular one is aimed at Bjnemp and it states quite stupidly " The difference Bj, simple little fella, is when those choices affect others it is no longer a personal choice. I explained this to my 3 year old boy and he understood it right away". I am not quoting the whole post only the begining. First of all to call anyone "a simple little fella", is a demeaning statement, 2nd, I hope you also explained to your 3 year old little boy how daddy is trying to take away other peoples freedom of choice and how it will affect everyone, even your little 3 year old boys freedoms in the long run, you sir in my opinion are the most obnoxious, crass and dangerous person in Emporia, evidently you seem to think that your choice to try and take away other peoples rights and freedoms will not affect other people, you are even stupider than I first thought. What gives you the right to decide what's best for everyone.

Posted by shoehorn (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know when I see articles like this with this title it really makes me question the intelligence of some of the people around here. This is not nor ever has been a government proposal, its people, regular citizens trying to enact legislation. People are way to quick to blame the government and cry about freedoms and choice when in fact the government had nothing to do with the clean air proposal. Whine about the culprits not our government please.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the point being made is that citizen's are trying to enact legislation that the government will have to enforce, thereby expanding the already bloated reach of government into the private lives and choices of citizens and business owners.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy-OutsiderJ;
Both of you are correct, however this issue is undoubtedly being forced upon the local government by an individual or individuals or group that is trying to force upon all citizens of Emporia their beliefs, their will, their way of thinking and above all their way of living and doing so by trying to pursade the local government to get involved and force their way of living upon every other Emporia citizen, by threat of severe penalties, etc., this type of bullying, brow-beating and discrimination must not be allowed.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What's the little guy going to do? this either gets passed by the commission, or goes to a vote if enough signatures are validated by the county clerk. If the city commission passes this ban, The little guy can vote with their dollars. Call Jeff Longbine, tell him you'll buy your next Chevy from Bozarth in Topeka. Call Jim Kessler, tell him & his partner, you'll buy your next furnace from Chris Phillips, (he is against this ban.) Call Kevin Nelson, tell him you'll take your shipping needs to another company. Call Kevins wife ,tell her you will tan somewhere other than Caribbean Sun, (by the way, don't tanning beds cause cancer), Call Mayor Agler, and tell him you'll have another bookeeper do your books and tax work. Call Julie Johnson and tell her, well tell her goodby with the next election. (She works for the State, GO FIGURE). After all it is our freedom of choice to decide where to spend our hard earned dollars. 1 Steve Sauder cannot make up for a bunch of liitle guys!

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And I almost forgot, Call Steve Sauder and cancel all your advertising with his radio stations and even though WE ALL love listening to Ron Thomas in the morning, stop listening to KVOE, and let Sauders other advertisers know we are no longer listening to KVOE.

Posted by BigE (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rbow, that doesn't sound like you are "shopping Emporia first".
methusla, or any of the others, why are you all so reluctant to comment on my questions about the moral issue involved? Are there not any?

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BigE.
I think I understand your question about moral issue.
You posted "Is there a moral aspect to this debate that has not been addressed? If it's legally acceptable, does that also guarantee that it is morally acceptable?"

I think it absolutely guarantee moral acceptability. Smoking in privately owned businesses certainly doesn't violate any mores (pronounced morays) or taboos that I can think of. I think that you are asserting that we disregard the health of others, so producing SHS smoke is immoral. This is patently untrue. For 232 years Americans have smoked, not because it was legal, but because they chose to. I am greatly concerned about the general well being and health of the people in this community and those around me. But I still smoke in privately owned businesses that allow it. Why you ask? Because I know the risk when I walk through the door, and so do all of the others in that business, smoker and non smoker alike. Despite that I still go through the door, just like all of the other patrons, smoker and smoker alike because they and I CHOOSE to. Seems kind of like a straw man argument to me. Especially when you consider that without tobacco there may very well have never been a United States, considering that it was America's first real money making cash crop and export.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I know its bad grammar, but sentences are just so damned easy to end with prepositions. I wonder why?

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Should read, "Despite that I still go through the door, just all of the other patrons, smoker and NONsmoker alike because they and I CHOOSE to.

Sorry, brain quicker than fingers.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BigE do you really think that any government should dictate our morals?

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Is there a moral aspect to this debate that has not been addressed? If it's legally acceptable, does that also guarantee that it is morally acceptable?" BigE

So is this your real motivation? To legislate morality? Is all of the false concern for the health of the poor unwashed masses being forced to breath 2nd hand smoke nothing but (pardon the pun) "smoke and mirrors"?

You personally feel that a legal activity is immoral so you want to enact laws and ordinances to prevent it?

That was a very enlightening statement, BigE. Thanks for sharing.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Goodoleboy: Are you digesting what you are saying? Do you actually believe that? Above, you said:

"This is not nor ever has been a government proposal, its people, regular citizens trying to enact legislation. People are way to quick to blame the government and cry about freedoms and choice when in fact the government had nothing to do with the clean air proposal."

Did you read that? You are clearly stating that it is perfectly acceptable for any group of citizens, no matter how misguided or corrupt, to try and ramrod their idea of correctness into the city commission and eventually into law. So you condone some group of skinheads, being "regular citizens", penning a proposal banning blacks and jews from Emporia, demanding the city adopt it, and it becoming law? That would be okay with you? How about a group of local health nuts, all "regular citizens", presenting a ban to the commissioners banning fat people from fast food restaurants in Emporia? According to your reasoning above, if that became law it would be fine because "regular citizens" came up with the idea, and not the government.

If so, you are a man with a very slanted, and dangerous, view of democracy and freedom. I fought and sacrificed for those freedoms and your radical Nazi/Communist-leaning thinking offends me, as it should all Emporians and all Americans.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a fun little story:

A friend of mine was hired by EDA to get people to sign petitions for CAE. (are they separate groups or not?) After I suggested to her to read the smoking ban resolution and how restrictive it is, she presently quit, and last Saturday she signed our petition against the smoking ban, and would like her name removed from the CAE petition. Just another little fun fact from the ALLIES!

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 11:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So they paid their petition workers? Really. With government money, no doubt. Outrageous.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 28, 2008 at 11:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This entire smoking ban initiative by EDA and CAE has been deceptive, deceitful, underhanded and under the table. It is a direct reflection of those who conceived it. As jayhawker said, "outrageous".

Posted by hogan77 (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 2 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I live out of town, but you can bet your sweet butt that when I come to visit family and friends, I don't care if Emporia DOES have a smoking ban. I will light one up anywhere I like, I'd like to see the city stop me. I am not a local, I am a dummie when it comes to knowing what Emporia does and does not do (HAHAHA). I REFUSE to give up MY RIGHTS for some high and mighty politicians.

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on September 29, 2008 at 5:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, gang, it's time to move:

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

And, c'mon folks, you know it's not proper to try to guess poster's identities and out them. And, no, the comments weren't removed because I know who the poster is, because I don't.

My apologies, however, for leaving the posts up as long as they were. I was sitting in a hospital waiting room much of Sunday and now able to check the Web site.