After hearing comments both for and against a proposed smoking ban, members of Clean Air Emporia, the group that offered the ban, offered to modify the proposal.
“It is not our intent to run anyone out of business or to reduce their sales,” said Margie Grimwood. “Clean Air Emporia’s intent is simply to improve the health and safety of all Emporians. By enacting a clean air ordinance we will be protecting the public and the workers’ right to breathe clean air. ...”
During the hearing, limited to two hours, more than 50 people voiced their opinions to Emporia city commissioners. Each speaker was given up to five minutes to speak. The debate came down between those promoting public health and those who support a business’ right to choose.
Although fewer than 50 people spoke, the forum drew around 200 people.
Larry Roach, who owns Sidetrack Saloon, offered his view of Clean Air Emporia’s intent.
“These people over here in Clean Air Emporia wouldn’t even know if we were smoking or non-smoking. It’s not the type of establishment they’d be interested in. I feel, as a business owner, it should be my right to decide about my business’s rights, and anybody that’s a patron, it’s their right to patronize me or not.”
Wesley Kosko offered his perspective from the point of view of an employee.
“I am a graduate student and a bartender. ... Simply put, the overwhelming majority of citizens are non-smokers and want these bans. They want to patronize bars, restaurants, coffee shops and other places of public accommodation without suffering the annoying and unhealthy pollution of the very air they breathe while enjoying their drink or their meal.”
Cory Nicolet differed. “I don’t think you’ll find a person in here, young or old, that doesn’t think smoking poses health risks on every level ... but by passing this ban, you are saying to the community that they do not have the capacity to make their own decisions. ...”
“I think that Kansas is very good at common sense,” said Stephen Cole, co-owner of Cole’s.
“I am neither for nor against a smoking ban. I think that the people should decide,” he said, addressing the commissioners. “I strongly encourage you to table both proposals and allow it to go to a public vote. ...”
At one point during the hearing, Steve Corbin, owner of Town Royal, asked for people who oppose the ban to stand up for a head count. A majority of the crowd in the theater stood up to cheers and applause.
Steve Sauder, representing Clean Air Emporia, offered to compromise.
“In the spirit of cooperation, we are offering to get with the city commission to suggest changes in our proposal to better meet the collective needs of our community. ... No one wants to give away any rights.”
His suggested modifications include reducing the ban from 20 feet from entrances to 10 feet and to modify the definition of public entrances to exclude back doors and alleys. The group also offered to remove the stipulation that a business would lose its license after three violations of the ordinance.
“Clean Air Emporia realizes it is unfair to single out licensees and is willing to remove that from the proposal,” Sauder said.
“I think each commissioner has studied both proposals extensively,” Commissioner Jeff Longbine said. “We’ve tried to look at other ordinances throughout Kansas and the nation. The difficult part is that there is so much conflicting evidence.
“I think we got a good amount of public input tonight,” Longbine said. “I like Clean Air’s suggestion that maybe there are compromises, that maybe we can sit down with a group of representatives from each side and see if there is a proposal that will work.
“Where we go from here, well, we’ll ultimately have to make a decision whether we pass something or whether we allow one group to take it to a referendum.”
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
citizen (anonymous) says...
I will first state that I do not agree with a compromise. We already post signs of smoking and non smoking establishments and it works. What else is there. The system in not broken and does not need fixing. Also, it has come to the attention that Teresa Walters has used Drug Awareness money (taxpayer money) to fund the Clean Air marketing campaign. Can we see the invoices and who paid for this. Because I do not want my tax dollar, not one cent, to go to this Clean Air.
September 30, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Citizen,
I agree with you 100%, and would like to organize an effort to make them produce a line item budget for both groups.
Here is their grant information again. I posted this earlier, and misread it. They did not get $92,675 for 5 years, they are getting $92,675 a YEAR!
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.
http://www.samhsa.gov/StateSummaries/...
FY 2007 Funding: $92,675
Where is it, and where did it go?
The only activities they have on their calendar in 2007 is 6th grade walk to be drug free on OCT 7, and May 24-Keep It a Safe Summer (KISS). Thats it. There were two more events in 2008. This is only events, not awareness weeks and months, but as far as I can tell, in two years, they have done 4 events, at a cost to the taxpayers of $185,350. I may be off base, but I feel right now it is a case of nuts and bolts, we got screwed. I think I am going to start digging a little deeper on this group, but first, I would LOVE to see their checkbook register.
September 30, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cwalker (Chris Walker) says...
We would like to remind everyone to stay on topic. Personal attacks will be removed. These comment sections are designed to allow for constructive debate and comments, not for mindless bashing. Stay on topic and debate the issue at hand, but leave the personal attacks out of it.
Chris Walker
Editor and publisher
September 30, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Thanks for the info, josie's. I'm going to copy this to a file right now. Yes, we want transparency. If it's public money, we should be able to get it. $92 grand a YEAR????!!! Where's the register?
September 30, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
If I were going to get a ban on something passed by the government I would make the ban as restrictive and odius as I could. Then after the public outcry and name-calling I would (in the spirit of fairness) offer a compromise on the ban. This just happened here in Emporia last night. Nice try CAE but we are not buying it. See you at the polls.
September 30, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I agree, rbow. To begin with, businesses in Emporia already post their own decisions to be smoke-free and it works. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. We don't need an ordinance telling us how to run our private businesses.
September 30, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Hey settle down Bjnemp, I want to here what you have to say, apperantly your getting a little rowdey here with all the removed comments. Try posting one with no-ones name on it and see if it gets removed?
September 30, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
etownsmoker (anonymous) says...
if you are backing the smoking ban, put your money where your mouth is and put your business out front. Lets see how bad this ban would be for your business, because if you are brave enough to show your support for the ban, watch the people that are against it boycott your business.
September 30, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
So let me get this straight. According to etownsmoker, if a business says "no smoking" they will get boycotted. So when the entire town is required to adhere to the ban, every business that once allowed smoking will be boycotted? Happy hours will now take place in people's living rooms and no one will go out to eat anymore??? Ridiculous.
There is no way, shape, or form that this ban will cause loss of business and I'm SICK of hearing that. If every business adheres to it, there will be NO loss of business! People are NOT going to run to bars or restaurants in neighboring towns just so they can smoke indoors, nor will they stop patronizing places they have always been customers of.
Opponents need to come up with a new argument other than "loss of business" or "loss of personal rights" because those are old, used and quite meaningless excuses.
Regardless, however, when Legislature convenes in 2009, this law will be passed statewide. Then what are you going to say???
September 30, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hickory (anonymous) says...
Let's forget about all this compromising and take it to the citizens of Lyon County.......yes, I said Lyon County, because after Clean Air Emporia loses in a city election, they will just take it to all the small towns around Emporia and keep wasting our tax dollars. Let's have a county wide vote and be done with it. The Emporia City Commission has alot more pressing things to deal with, than this stupid ordinance.
September 30, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Gemini,
A dance club here in town went non-smoking about 3 weeks ago. This past Saturday, this club's employees were at my club by 1:15 because they shut down due to lack of business, on a SATURDAY night!
I don't think you have a clue about the bar business. This is one of the most fickle and competitive businesses in town. We need every advantage just to stay afloat, and allowing people to smoke in here is huge. Just stick to what you know, and let me run my business the way I feel will make it successful.
If the state passes this ban, I am going to ask why did CAE, EDA, and the City spend XXX amount of dollars on something that the state was going to vote on in 6 months.
September 30, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Hickory,
Yes!
September 30, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
Josiesbar,
I was waiting for your response. In the mid 1990’s there was a bar in your VERY location called Buckets. Buckets was a non-smoking establishment and guess what? It was PACKED every single night. And this was a time when there were several other college bar/dance clubs in the area that allowed smoking!!!! Buckets did an incredible amount of business because it was smoke free. It was wonderful not being suffocated by a haze of smoke on the dance floor on a crowded night. It was great not having to worry about getting cigarette burns on a new shirt bought just for that occasion. And if anyone wanted to smoke, they stepped out onto the back patio. So the “loss of business” argument needs to be put to rest. It just won’t happen.
And unfortunately for your argument, I DO know a lot about the bar business. I have been a patron of many bars, including yours, as well as a doorperson, waitress and bartender of a bar in Emporia. I know how fickle the crowds can be. But if EVERY BAR or smoking establishment follows this ban, this argument is NOT valid!!
September 30, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hickory (anonymous) says...
gemini......why did Buckets close? Could it be because of loss of business?
September 30, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
Hickory,
I completely agree with a vote. But that will also be wasting tax dollars should the ban not get approved. That will only be a small, short-lived victory for the anti-clean air folks for when the statewide ban is passed in 2009, proponents of the ban will have ultimately won..
September 30, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hickory (anonymous) says...
gemini.........if you think the state is going to pass a ban on smoking, why are you wasting our tax dollars now?
September 30, 2008 at 5:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
I do believe that Buckets shut down because of MIPs, like every other college bar in this town did in the 1990's (except Babe's, Turtles and Bruffs), NOT because of lack of business. In fact, I believe it only changed "ownership" and didn't really close at all.
(I could be incorrect in my statements above as I had nothing to do with that bar other than being a patron but the above was rumored to be true).
Granted, smoking was eventually re-allowed in the bar, mostly because of lack of effort in enforcing it, but definitely not due to lack of business.
And as mentioned by josiesbar, the bar crowd is fickle. You can lose the crowd overnight, regardless of smoking laws. I've witnessed it firsthand.
Like I said, you need a better argument. This one is fading fast.
September 30, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
etownsmoker (anonymous) says...
I did not say if a business chooses to go non-smoking to boycott it. What I did say is that if they show that they support this ban, then they will be boycotted. It is their right to decide if their business is smoke free or not. Local businesses already choose to be smoke free and some do not. That doesn't stop people from going to those places, but when you start telling people how to run there business then you are going to upset people. If this is truly a health issue then why not also ban anyone with a cough, or the sniffles. As for the law being passed statewide, It hasn't passed yet. And will not be near as harsh as the one proposed here if it does pass.
September 30, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
Hickory,
Advocates are not the ones wasting tax dollars on it. The opponents are the ones causing this by dragging it into debate. We can drop the entire issue now as far as I'm concerned. It will get passed next year and I will applaud our elected officials for finally placing public health on the front burner.
My gripe with this whole deal is the same ol' same ol' arguments of "loss of business" and "loss of personal rights." It is neither!
September 30, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
etownsmoker (anonymous) says...
If you just want a non smoking bar, then go to the Blind. It is open and smoke free. Why make every bar smoke free?
September 30, 2008 at 5:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"Like I said, you need a better argument. This one is fading fast."
Fair enough. It's MY business that I dropped $20,000 of MY money on, so that I could run MY business the way I see fit. It's MY decision how it should be operated, not yours, don't tread on it.
By the way, there is a key word in there somewhere, see if you can find it.
September 30, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hickory (anonymous) says...
My argument isn't loss of business.........my agument is the right of a business owner to run his or her business the way they want to, without government intervention. The only reason I would support a vote, is because, I don't think a small group of people should influence the commission one way or the other. Everyone who voted for the commissioners, should have a say in this matter and voting for it is the only way that is fair for everyone. The same goes for the state legislature. The citizens of the state of kansas should vote for it. (but, it still isn't fair for the business owner)
September 30, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
I don't smoke but I don't, as a rule, patronize businesses with rules that ban legal activities.
September 30, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
Honestly, this isn't about just bars as all of these posts would seem to dictate. I've never stopped going to a bar because of smoke, however, it would be a nice perk to not be subjected to it anymore. Restaurants fall under this ban as well and I believe the majority of the people who support this ban are greater patrons of dining establishments than drinking ones. But where do you draw the line? Separating dining from drinking establishments is not an option.
It seems that even with the compromises, which I do believe are a step forward, it will not be good enough for those who oppose the ban as it still, to quote some, "infringes on the rights of business owners and individuals."
I'm sure business owners were unhappy when sales taxes became law. They probably cried that it was un-Constitutional and violated their rights to run their business and spend their money as they saw fit. But businesses pay it now and usually with little to no aggravation. And so it shall be with a smoking ban.
No one is telling you that you cannot smoke. The only change is that there will be certain restrictions to it which do not in ANY way violate an individual's right as there is no law or amendment stating you have a right to smoke in public places.
Both sides have great leadership who are passionate about this cause. A statewide vote on this issue would be ideal but we won't ever see that come to pass, therefore, we have to rely on the knowledge and good judgment of our elected officials.
September 30, 2008 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
If you want to know why CAE conceded the four points last night, we need look no further than Salina.
http://www.saljournal.com/rdnews/stor...
"After six years of a partial smoking ban, local anti-tobacco forces are pushing the Salina City Commission to extend the ban to nearly all public places."
I think we all know where this is going...
September 30, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
USN: Ironic that if the ban passes, the legal activity of smoking in a bar becomes an illegal activity. Then what do you do?
September 30, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hickory (anonymous) says...
Is this a one-way street for you gemini? You say it's not violating the business owner's right,to run his business they way he sees fit, but yet you also say it's violating your rights as an individual to be able to go into an establishment and expect it to be smoke free, because you don't like smoke. Again..........you HAVE the choice to go into the business or not. Just why can't you people get that thru your heads? You're all complaining about your rights as an individual, but yet you say this isn't about a person's or business owners rights. YOU need to come up with a better argument that makes sense and the sales tax issue sure isn't one of them.
September 30, 2008 at 6:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
Hickory....
Please re-read what I have written Not once have I said it violates MY rights. I did say that it would be nice to not be subjected to secondhand smoke but I'm not throwing the "rights" issue around like opponents of the ban have.
The sales tax comment was meant to be an analogy comparing the current issue and past government decisions, that may have been undesirable to some at the time and how they are now barely given any thought. Geesh.
September 30, 2008 at 6:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
The loss of business does stand as a valid point. In Wichita, Emerson Biggins is starting to allow smoking after 1 month of being non-smoking. Because of the ban that Wichita passed, this also means that they cannot allow anyone under 18 to enter.
Here is the link to the Wichita Eagle talking about it.
http://www.kansas.com/business/renger...
September 30, 2008 at 8:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
Anyone here frequent bars such as The Noose, Jamo's, or Natashas? If we stand 10 to 20 feet from the door we are standing in the street or on parked cars. Can't go to the side because even at night the ordinance states you must be 10,20.or 30 feet from any door, window, or ventilation system. Honestly I am trying to quit smoking, and this ban could only help me, but I still oppose it. Gemini you were looking for a new swing on the argument, this doesn't involve "loss of business" or "personal rights". Just where do smokers go to smoke when there is no where to smoke? Should we go stand in 707's parking lot ( thats wheat state grill for those who don't already know) if we are at Natasha's? How about at the Noose, should we have to hide in the alley, (Which has no lighting mind you) or stand in the middle of the road?
September 30, 2008 at 9:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Well, Well- If I am understanding Mr. Steve Sauders compromise proposal he and the rest of the CAE are willing to classify all those who smoke, who wish to smoke in a business that allows smoking as second or third class citizens and should be relegated to no closer than 10 feet from the front door or smoke or relegated, I am assuming ouside the back door or in the alleys.
Now thats some compromise ! Doesn't Steve Sauder realize that he or any other CAE advocate that decides to visit any one of these places would have to walk by anyone who smokes within 10 feet of the front door and you would probably not find Steve Sauder or any CAE advocate at the back door or alley, because they feel that would be beneath them, because they all think that they are upstanding, moral first class citizens and they think that smokers are immoral, second or third class citizens and I bet, that it would not be long before Steve Sauder and the CAE advocates would be proposing to ban smoking within 10 feet of the front door, outside the back door and the alleys.
To me the compromise that Steve Sauder and CAE advocates should consider, is for Steve Sauder and all of the CAE advocates to just stay out of and away from businesses who allow smoking, which is their freedom of choice, as well as right to allow smoking on or in the property they own.
September 30, 2008 at 10:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
I have one word to say to the CAE compromise:
NUTS!
September 30, 2008 at 10:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Ha! Ha! Ha!
That's a good one Matt.
September 30, 2008 at 10:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nmse_s (anonymous) says...
My question is this: Has anyone (who posts here) paid attention to Lawrence's smoking ban they initiated? I'm not sure if that city went through this kind of debate over it but if so maybe we should look more closely at it to learn from them. I also haven't had the priviledge of visiting the town but would assume that all businesses are doing fine with the ban in place (it's probably still too soon to tell, admittingly). Are the bars here in Emporia so dependent on smokers to keep their business open?
September 30, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
On the loss of business aspect, Gemini: Emporia Open For Business has figures from the Coors Distributor that serves the Lawrence Area. Their ON PREMISE SALES DROPPED 17%after the ban. On premise means bars and resturants and clubs. The distributors OFF PREMISE SALES INCREASED 16%. Off premise means liquor stores grocery and convienience stores. Most people who know about the bar business would deduce that the 17% of drinkers that used to drink in the bars are now packing it home to drink. We are working on the other distributors to get their figures.
The ON PREMISE tax of 10% ALLof which
is returned to the city dropped 17%.
The OFF PREMISE ENFORCEMENT TAX of 8% which NONE OF goes to the city, increased by 16%
October 1, 2008 at 7:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
gemini, did my above post show that the ban hurt some businesses in Lawrence? ANY QUESTIONS?
October 1, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
And has that figured decreased any since then? Ever think that people were just ticked off at the time and decided they would "show them" and stay home and drink???
Also, in the case of Josies--he has a college-age crowd where a many of them are still under the age of 21. While they aren't supposed to drink in bars, many still find a way. These are not individuals who can purchase alcohol at a liquor store, nor can they drink in their dorm rooms and the increase of house parties is only going to increase the amount of calls to the police from neighbors at 1:00 am.
Not to mention, Lawrence is 20 minutes from a large metropolitan area. The people that live there have other options when it comes to places to eat, hang out, etc. Emporia does not have another dining or drinking district remotely close to it. With current gas prices, I seriously doubt Emporians are going to drive to Topeka to eat dinner at a restaurant just so they can smoke!!!
Show me ban statistics from a town of our size and demographic, that is distantly located from other large cities and I'll listen.
And nmse_s brings up an excellent point...how sad is it that bar owners depend so greatly on smokers for business? There are many others out there that do not smoke, yet that do enjoy socializing with friends in a bar atmosphere.
Bar and restaurant owners shouldn't let fear guide their decisions. This kind of change will be refreshing. And who's to say that IF (and I emphasize IF) our economy finds itself in a long-term slump SOLELY DUE to the ban, that it can't be repealed?
October 1, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Gemini posted: "It was wonderful not being suffocated by a haze of smoke on the dance floor on a crowded night. It was great not having to worry about getting cigarette burns on a new shirt bought just for that occasion.
It would be nice to not be subjected to secondhand smoke
it would be a nice perk to not be subjected to it anymore"
So gemini, based on your previous posts, this is a matter of preference to you. What would be nice for you. What you would like to see when you step out on the town...
Am I to take it that you are unconcerned with CAE's stance that this is about the health and welfare of employees and patrons.
Am I to take it that you are fully in favor of taking the decisions away from business owners, who in fact pour their heart, soul, time, money, blood, sweat, and tears into a business because they allow something that you don't like, or that you think is not "nice".
If you are so concerned about being able to dance in your new shirt without getting burned, or stinking it up, or whatever other things you disapprove of, then make Matt an offer. I am sure you two could settle on a reasonable price for Josie's, then you could call it "Preferences: A Dance Club for the Elite." and you could allow any kind of customers you want. That is until some know it all gets bored and decides that they don't like something you allow and ban it.
Just because you worked in a bar once doesn't mean you know what it is like to own a bar or any other business. If you did know, then you would know that business owner's are practically married to the place they rely on for their livelihood. To hear you say that the rights argument is tired and settled makes me wonder if we live in the same America. Because the America I live in has no room for the idea that a conversation about rights and liberty should ever end. It is and should be a constant dialogue.
October 1, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Gemini posted: "Not to mention, Lawrence is 20 minutes from a large metropolitan area. The people that live there have other options when it comes to places to eat, hang out, etc. Emporia does not have another dining or drinking district remotely close to it. With current gas prices, I seriously doubt Emporians are going to drive to Topeka to eat dinner at a restaurant just so they can smoke!!!"
So you are saying that no owners will lose business because the government will force a choice on everyone across the board, and the business owners will have them trapped because they can't afford to go to Topeka.
And this type of government control, and loss of reasonable choice to partake in legal activities is okay with you.
How do you sleep at night with the knowledge that you are as anti-American as they come????
I might not go to Topeka, but I guarantee you I would drive to Americus to grab a beer and a smoke inside a building at the same time. So not only is your argument small minded and elitist, but it is also invalid.
October 1, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Weltha (anonymous) says...
hartford, Americus, and Olpe are abiout the same distance from Emporia. I really hope this ban doesn't go through but I will be going to one of these 3 places if it does. Most likely it will be Hartford
October 1, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
prettyblues (anonymous) says...
Kind of funny that our state Capital TOPEKA where all our laws are made and our sweet goveneror is housed, they don't have a smoking ban...LOL hmm...why is that!
October 1, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
prettyblues,
A state-wide smoking ban is going to be proposed in 2009, and is being led by Jim Barnett. If a smoking ban fails in his hometown, I feel it will really take the wind out of the sails of the state wide ban crusaders. This issue here will have far-reaching consequences, for better or worse.
October 1, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
Good grief. Now everyone is just splitting hairs. Just because I'm the only one confronting the angry MOB on here doesn't mean I'm the only one in Emporia that feels this way. Yes, it would be NICE to visit a place and not be inundated with smoke, just as YOU find it to be nice to smoke in a restaurant. That argument goes both ways so let's move on.
I am very much an American therefore, you show me where in the Constitution it states that you have a RIGHT to smoke in public places then by God, you will have won your argument. There will always be things imposed by government that many do not approve of. I'm not particularly fond of the current child support laws and I sure as heck won't be pleased when and if the government gives amnesty to all the illegals in this country. But as an American, you learn to live with it and have the ability to work to change the things you believe are wrong. The saying goes, "you can't please all the people, all of the time."
Furthermore, business owners do not jump into proprietorship blindly. They are well aware of laws they must adhere to. As this is an ever-changing world and government, they also know nothing is forever or certain. Business owners are not the victims here and by claiming this, you insinuate they are and have been foolishly unaware of risks and/or chances they have taken by choosing to run a business in a particular area.
This is not a loss of reasonable choice. You still have the choice to smoke. The only way you are being limited is that secondhand smoke will no longer be an issue to Emporians. It's a selfish person that believes because they can smoke, it's ok to pollute the air around them.
I find it increasingly funny that people keep stating "don't go there if you don't like it!" What about children who don't have a choice??? Why is it fair that they be subjected to cigarette smoke during dinner when they can't do anything about it? Sounds selfish to me.
It's sad to hear that people would actually travel to an outside city for a BEER. I guess our DUI revenue will increase. And seriously, the area towns listed are somewhat lacking in a multitude of dining establishments. And before you lynch me for speaking ill of area towns, I'm quite fond of the Chicken House or Doggone Brothers Pizza in Olpe, however, these few places hardly offer an array of choices. My point in comparing that Lawrence is closer to more choices is that you cannot compare apples to oranges. What does or does not work for Lawrence cannot be assumed the same for a smaller, isolated town such as ours.
October 1, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dhcc66 (anonymous) says...
what we all fail to realize is something gemini pointed out unknowingly. bars fail for multiple reasons. in the almost 20 years that i've been here, i can only think of 2 or 3 bars that have stayed open through thick and thin. most have gone out of business because of poor management, the fickle bar crowd this town seems to have, or other "legal" reasons.
folks, bars will come and go. josies hasn't been around for that long, the noose just opened not too long ago, and natashas has already closed their doors. I'm sure that in the next year or so, other bars will come and go as well and all for their own reasons, and this is all pre-ban.
matt, don't make it sound like the ban is the only thing that stands between a bar being open or closed. it's normally poor management or the fickle bar crowds that do it. and if the ban is passed, some of the other posters are correct in saying that the crowds have to go somewhere.....maybe they will choose to frequent the new smokeless Josies??
October 1, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Many if not all of the opponents of this ban have never once said that we have the right to smoke in public places.
That is not what this is about. This is about the ability for private property owner's right to cater to whomever they please on their property. Which falls under life, LIBERTY, the pursuit of happiness, which is guaranteed by the constitution. Someone else posted the definition of LIBERTY straight out of the dictionary on another feed. I would encourge Gemini to look for that post or go to his/her dictionary.
"Yes, it would be NICE to visit a place and not be inundated with smoke, just as YOU find it to be nice to smoke in a restaurant."
I don't smoke in restaraunts...I usually have a cigarette on the way to dinner, and I am not in their long enough to need another before I finish. But I do smoke in bars. And I would travel to do so...not for the BEER but for the liberty.
Not to mention how conflicted the information concerning the effects of second hand smoke is at this time. I would think that even the hardiest proponent of this ban would concede that it is premature on its face simply because none of the experts in the field can even agree whether or not SHS is harmful, or how harmful it is, if it is harmful to begin with. I spent countless road trips as a child, windows rolled up, parents smoking to beat the ban. I don't have asthma, COPD, cancer, allergies, emphysema (sp?), or any other of these so called perils of second hand smoke.
Could it be that many of these things are actually caused genetic predispositions to them. I mean some people smoke until they are 100 and never have health problems related to it and some people get lung cancer in their 20's and never smoked a single time. But I digress, the point is that this ban is not about health, and even if it were it is scientifically too soon to ban anything.
October 1, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
dhcc66,
I agree with you, but you made my argument in a round-about sort of way. I'm saying bars have enough of a problem staying open here in Emporia, why add another straw to the camel's back?
You said "maybe they will choose to frequent the new smokeless Josie's"
I say they choose to frequent the smoking Josie's now. If they do choose to frequent the smokeless Josie's, I'm in the exact same spot I'm in right now. if they DON'T choose to frequent the smokeless Josie's, to quote Shrek, "I'm up chocolate creek without a popsicle stick." It's a lose-lose situation for bar owners.
October 1, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
http://fightantismokertyranny.blogspo...
http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBa...
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
(This one may be my favorite because it is a website authored by a doctor that has spent the last 20 odd years studying tobacco issues and health. He provides a fairly balanced view with his "Rest of the Story" style.)
And if you want a little taste of post ban Emporia:
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/4...
October 1, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
http://ash.org/etsreports.html
Take your pick on which report to read. They all state the same thing and have very credible sources to back them up.
Genetics IS a big factor in secondhand smoke. But the problem is that many people don't realize they've been affected until it's too late. Why aggravate something that may or may not be fatal? It's like playing Russian Roulette with a cigarette.
October 1, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Please let me know if this sounds familiar in the Emporia ban issue.
http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBa...
October 1, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Here is an opportunity to make up you own mind on the research you read. If you can see where it comes from and how it is compiled I think everyone can make a more informed decision.
http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBa...
October 1, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
Outside....before you start throwing around the life, liberty card, you might want to dig into its history and true meaning...seriously.
October 1, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
And Outside, thanks for pointing out Dr. Siegel's site. It is well done. Did you catch the story from the Boston Globe about the student on teens and restaurant smoking? Siegel was the lead author of the Massachusetts study. Here is the headline and lede of the story, plus a link:
Study: Restaurant tobacco bans influence teen smoking
BOSTON—A Massachusetts study suggests that restaurant smoking bans may play a big role in persuading teens not to become smokers.
http://tinyurl.com/4shf5k
Seems like another good reason for a ban, don't you think?
October 1, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Since this whole smoking ban issue started the anti-rights people have used Lawrence Ks. as an example of how this ban worked so well,didn't affect business etc,etc. After giving Gemini facts on the decrease of on premise sales, all of a sudden Lawrence doesn't compare with Emporia. I wish you people would make up your minds!
October 1, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Ok so it was the Declaration of Independence and not the constituion.
How is this for serious?
In 1772, four years before the Declaration was signed, Samuel Adams wrote a short piece entitled “Rights of the Colonists as Men”. His words included the following:
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these:
First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property;
together with the right to support and defend them
in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of,
rather than deductions from, the duty of self–preservation,
commonly called the first law of nature. All men have a right
to remain in a state of nature as long as they please;
and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious,
to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.
When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent.…
Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the
nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.
All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible,
to the law of natural reason and equity. As neither reason requires
nor religion permits the contrary, every man living in or out of
a state of civil society has a right peaceably and quietly
to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.
Or...
In case this excerpt is not sufficiently explicit concerning the origin of the rights so mentioned, further words from this same piece by Samuel Adams will make the point more clearly:
Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty,
in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men
are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable
laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of nations
and all well–grounded municipal laws,
which must have their foundation in the former...
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any
superior power on earth, and not to be under the will
or legislative authority of man,
but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
And perhaps my favorite...
Locke does not always state the exact Biblical references for his ideas, but in most instances lacking a reference, it will be readily understood that there is a Biblical source. For example, his notion of the purpose of civil government is derived from Romans 13.1–6, where Paul declares that God has ordained civil government for the purpose of restraining evil–doers.
On liberty, Locke wrote in section 22:
The natural liberty of man is to be free from
any superior power on earth, and not to be under
the will or legislative authority of man,
but to have only the law of nature for his rule...[7]
(F)reedom of men under government is, to have
a standing rule to live by, common to every one
of that society...
and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown,
arbitrary will of another man....
October 1, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
The preceding (in my above post) are from an essay by Dr. John C. Munday, Jr. as part of a freedom council seminar. I got this information on my second try using google. If those aren't serious and relevant enough for you, I am sure I could find many, many more. Not to mention that they were all written before the concept was used in the Declaration of Independence. Some things you might want to consider relevant in today's debate are:
F)reedom of men under government is, to have
a standing rule to live by, common to every one
of that society...
and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown,
arbitrary will of another man....
All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible,
to the law of natural reason and equity.
Thirdly, to property;
together with the right to support and defend them
in the best manner they can.
The proponents of the ban should remember that:
All men have a right
to remain in a state of nature as long as they please;
and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious,
to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another
October 1, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Crack in sack, you missed the point.
Those crimes would have never happened if there was no smoking ban. No one would have stepped outside and had a smoke and had their drink spiked, the bouncer would not have been enforcing an unpopular and biased law, etc. etc. etc.
Newsie. I said it was balanced when I posted it, so you are free to pick and choose what you take away from it.
I prefer:
Trifecta: Three Anti-Smoking Groups Fail to Correct Their Misleading, Inaccurate, and Defamatory Claims
New Data from Scotland Show that Pell et al. Article's Conclusion is Flawed; Bias is Apparent in Anti-Smoking Research on Heart Attacks-Smoking Bans
"Cathy Bell's" True Identity Revealed; Lawsuit Against "Her" Should Deter All Anti-Smoking Groups and Advocates from Continued Use of Smear Tactics
October 1, 2008 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Gemini- If I am understanding your comments and comments made by CAE supporters, you are indeed singling out and targeting bars, taverns, clubs and restaurants because they allow smoking.
Your imperious leader Steve Sauder has said that neither him nor the CAE wants to, nor is singling out or targeting bars, taverns, clubs or restaurants that allow smoking. Sounds to me as if you smoking ban advocates either want to ban smoking in just the bars, taverns, clubs and restaurants that allow smoking now or you are going to have to expand the scope of the no smoking ban to include the whole of Emporia and that would include private residences and private vehicles or everywhere in Emporia, as I see it, that is going to be the only way that you, the CAE, its supporters and leadership are going to be able to say you are not singling out any one individual or business or business owner.
October 1, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
Outside...I agree. He does seem balanced. I was just pointing out something I had not heard or considered.
The problem with the smoking debate is that -- on both sides of the issue -- there is so much misinformation, misunderstood information, spin and down-right lying that it is hard to distinguish good, relevant information from the BS.
I think anyone who can credibly set the record straight is an asset to both sides.
Look at it this way, accurate information could have save all of us a lot of time and hard feelings.
Have a good day.
Have a great day.
October 1, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
OutsiderJ- Your posts directly from the Declaration of Independence, which by the way was also used in part as a model for the Bill of Rights, should cause reasonable people to do some serious thinking about what they are trying to do, but alas, I doubt it will, as it seems the smoking ban advocates are not reasonible people.
I congratulate you on your persaverance, thought and tenacity.
October 1, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
You said
"On the loss of business aspect, Gemini: Emporia Open For Business has figures from the Coors Distributor that serves the Lawrence Area. Their ON PREMISE SALES DROPPED 17%after the ban. On premise means bars and resturants and clubs. The distributors OFF PREMISE SALES INCREASED 16%. Off premise means liquor stores grocery and convienience stores. Most people who know about the bar business would deduce that the 17% of drinkers that used to drink in the bars are now packing it home to drink. We are working on the other distributors to get their figures.
The ON PREMISE tax of 10% ALLof which
is returned to the city dropped 17%.
The OFF PREMISE ENFORCEMENT TAX of 8% which NONE OF goes to the city, increased by 16%"
Could there be any other reasons that the #'s decreased? For example a changing economy where it is cheaper for patrons to drink at home or elsewhere? Maybe college wasn't in session or on spring break? maybe budweiser offered better prices?
Where are there #'s at now?
October 1, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Weltha (anonymous) says...
I can't answer the first questions but it doesn't matter if Bud is offering better prices to the bar/restaurant they sell it to the customer at the same price. Example- if they run a special on bottle beer from $2.50 down to $2.25 they never say just Coors or just Bud or just Miller light. Its always ALL domestice bottles and they usually state does not include imports. So that theory is null and void.
October 1, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Newsie--
Accurate information would certainly be a blessing, I think everyone could agree on that.
Have an equally great day.
October 1, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
I wonder on the accuracy of this, but it is from a branch of the World Health Organization (WHO).
Another little-publicized study was conducted by the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC) part of the World Health Organization (WHO). The research ran for 10 years and covered 7 European countries. No matter how it's spun (and it has been) the study concluded there was no statistically significant risk for non-smokers who either lived with or worked with smokers. In fact, the only numbers it arrived at that had actual statistical significance, showed a slightly decreased lung cancer risk in later life among the children of smokers.
-"Multicenter Case-Control Study Of Exposure To Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Lung Cancer In Europe," Bofetta Et Al, Journal Of The NCI, Vol 90, NO.19, October 7, 1998
Here is a link related to it: http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBa...
I know the proponents will say it is from an anti ban forum or website, but they just posted the results, the WHO or IARC did the study.
October 1, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
From the above link:
And now comes the capper.
A new (2003) study with an impeccable provenance-- the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study (CPS1)-- shows the same results as the WHO study, and with no room for wiggle, spin or ambiguity.
Focusing on 35,561 never-smoking Californians married to smokers, who were followed by the Cancer Society for 39 years (1959 to 1998), the tabular results not only--and absolutely -- showed no lung cancer risk whatsoever but actually showed a slightly lower risk than expected among the general never-smoker population.
These results held for both men (0.75 @ 95% confidence) and women (0.99 @ 95%), held both before and after the results were mathematically adjusted for seven relevant confounders, and further, showed no dose response trend (the risks did not grow with the amount of exposure.) (*)
-"Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Tobacco-Related Mortality In A Prospective Study Of Californians, 1960-98," Enstrom & Kabat, BMJ 5/17/03
This ought to, definitively, put the matter to rest.
Except among those who are hopelessly committed to a social agenda
October 1, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
Hey Outsider: Did some poking around on the Enstrom et al. study. Did you know the study was actually funded by several tobacco companies? And that the American Cancer Society denouced the study for "inaccurate use of date?"
As we discussed, more spin by biased groups. Either side will find spin to their liking and use it. Quite frankly, that's what frustrates me about both sides of this debate. The smart ones among us (that's you and I) will seek the truth and only the truth and form are opinions on that.
You can read more at:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/con...
October 1, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
Sorry, that should be "inaccurate use of data"
October 1, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
etownsmoker (anonymous) says...
I am just curious, but aren't most resteraunts already smoke-free. Which makes me wonder why the ban in the first place, unless it is just because some of our citizens would prefer to live in Lawrence. Also i am finding it very interesting how emotional people are getting on this topic. People are almost willing to get into a fist fight just to prove a point. and force business owners to do something they don't want to. And the worst part of the whole thing is the people in favor most likely won't ever go into majority of the business's most effected by a ban
October 1, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
My maternal grandmother, bless her soul, was one of the sweetest, kindest, most loving little ladies that ever lived. She married at the age of 16 in the Missouri Ozark hills and started having children a year later. Granny never smoked but her husband of 60 years, my wonderful grandpa, smoked heavily all his life. So did all of their four children, their grandchildren, and most of the extended family including aunts, uncles, neices, nephews, and cousins. Grandma's tiny house was full of people all the time and most were smoking like chimneys 24-7. Her living room was usually so thick with smoke it was foggier than a London night.
Grandma passed away in 2002. She died from old age. Her tired aging body just gave out after many years of endless hard work and worry. I suspect she would have lived much longer had she not been subject to breathing decades of ever-present, thick, second-hand smoke in the small confines of her home.
How much longer would she have lived without all the toxic second-hand smoke? Who knows? There are no definitive studies or facts to answer that question. I was one of those family members who always smoked in granny's house. I hope I didn't contribute to her demise. We loved her dearly.
Granny Fisher died in June of 2002, in Kansas City, Kansas, just a few months short of her 103rd birthday.
I may be wrong, but I tend to believe the effects of second-hand smoke are greatly exaggerated by those who, for their own personal reasons, object to smoking and those who smoke.
CAE radio and print ads claim "If you are breathing second-hand smoke, you are smoking." I find that statement a bit of a stretch. You see, the human lungs are the world's most efficient filters. I breathe in oxygen, I breath out carbon dioxide. I breathe in cigarette smoke, I breathe out the gaseous remains of that smoke; minus the "harmful" toxins it once contained.
I contend the air we breathe outdoors (been to Denver or LA lately?), car fumes, industrial smokestack waste, the water we drink, dust, and the food we eat present far more health risk than second-hand smoke. Any food item in your home that is packaged in a can, cellophane, cardboard, box, sack, bag, comes frozen, or is processed in any way, is far more of a risk to your health than exhaled and filtered smoke.
The point is: the world we live in today is one big risk to our health and well-being. To single out one insignificant part of that equation as "the culprit" causing every ailment and malady from asthma to cancer to warts seems far-fetched at best---and fear-mongering and grossly unfair at worst.
Perhaps I'm naive, but it seems to me that before CAE introduced the smoking ban, there was no smoking problem in Emporia. 95% of all buildings and businesses were already smoke-free, everybody got along, and no one was forced to do anything they didn't want to do. So why are we battling and arguing in an attempt to ban or not ban a problem that never existed?
October 1, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
crackinsack: How utterly deplorable that you would say this:
"people who smoke kill people".
It is so sad that your over-zealous support for a senseless cause would make you say such a despicable thing. Far worse, you must actually believe it.
October 1, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
been_there (anonymous) says...
It seems to me that the fundamental principle in this discussion is over a person's right or freedom to choose. I do smoke and I would agree with the smoking ban when it comes to restaurants, but not when it comes to a bar or tavern. I hate smoke when I am trying to eat and am courteous enough to believe most people feel this way. However, when I go to a bar and drink, I do want to be able to smoke. Many people I know that don't smoke will light up when they start drinking.
I'm sure I'm going to hear about this but....if I don't like country music, I choose not to go into a bar that plays it, same with Rap or HipHop. If I don't like football, I don't pay to watch a game or sit thru it on television. If I don't like Chinese food, I don't go to a Chinese restaurant. I can vote for whatever candidate I choose to or practice whatever religion I choose to. The point being, I am still free to make that choice, as are all of you. If a bar owner chooses to have a smoke-free establishment or not is their choice. Just as it is my choice whether I frequent that establishment or not. Also, I am choosing to suffer the consequences for my decisions, as is everyone in life. If I choose to commit a crime, I also choose to suffer the said consequences.
I also believe that with the state of the economy and the road Emporia is already going down, adding another strike against us would not be wise. Our lives are already dictated by so many things that we can't do anything about. The world is never going to be a perfect place but at least we still have the FREEDOM OF CHOICE to change those things within our abilities. By adding another law, we are just taking away another one of those freedoms.
October 1, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
Perhaps what crackinsack meant to say was that secondhand smoke may ultimately result in the death of innocent bystanders. Now you figure out how that secondhand smoke got there in the first place and crackinsack's comment, as abrasive as it is, may start to make sense..
October 1, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Crackinsack said, "That's like saying people are only killed over drugs because they are illegal. Bans don't kill people; people (who smoke) kill people."
Those are nothing alike. Smoking (in "approved places") and or cigarettes would not be banned by the CAE. So your argument above would have to relate to people being killed over cigarettes, not smoking bans.
If just once you could put forth a rational argument that was valid and could be followed, I think you would more effectively make your point.
October 1, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Newsie,
I posted this link earlier and your questions on the validity of a study are page right out the anti smoker playbook.
http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBa...
but no I had not heard that it was considered debunked.
I would also encourage everyone to educate themselves about epidemiology which is the way nearly all SHS studies (as well as most health and drug related studies) are conducted. This has a pretty good explanation that isn't too technical with formulas and the like. I especially related to the section about confounding.
http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBa...
October 1, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
slvrnblk : There is no arguing with you or Newsie so I say your both 100% right. You have never posted an inacurate fact, you are right on. Couldn't agree with you more! God bless us all for your thoughtful posts.
October 1, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Penny (anonymous) says...
BJ, God bless granny's genes. If we all had that genetic makeup it sure wouldn't be as much of an issue. Unfortunately we don't. My dear grandma died an agonizing death, never smoked but lived with my equally dear (though bull-headed) grandpa who smoked their entire marriage as did all his brothers. The brothers all died agonizing deaths from emphysema, with the last 10 years or so of their lives spent hauling oxygen around and repeated hospitalizations. Grandma died of cancer and never once personally smoked. The way I understand secondhand smoke, the greatest danger comes from "side stream" smoke, the smoke that comes off a lit cigarette, not your exhalation.
I guess you're right, you must be a little naive. Because I've been hearing concerns/complaints, etc for years about second hand smoke. We've all just put up with it, complaining only to each other, I guess. After enough of that, some brave, civic-minded people have finally taken it to the next level, in other words, stopped complaining and taken action. I admire that, I'm not quite that brave.
I'll admit, I don't spend much time in bars these days (been there, done that), but I'd sure like to be able to take my family out for dinner wherever I wanted to without having to risk their health (I do have a daughter with quite severe allergies and asthma). I'd also like to be able to get warranty work done on my GM vehicle without having my eyes water and itch. (Longbine's service center is always thick with cigarette smoke)
You have made a decision to smoke and to continue to smoke, despite evidence that to the vast majority of people it is quite harmful. I hope for your sake that your gamble pays off for you. I smoked in my youth, but given my family history and as I learned more, I chose to become a non-smoker (not an easy thing I might add!). I have absolutely no desire to try to change your mind and convince you not to smoke, I'd just like equal respect for my decision. My decision is to believe the enormous amount of evidence that says secondhand smoke is harmful, especially in combination with my presumably poor respiratory/cancer genetics. Why should my life be more difficult or possibly shortened because of your decision? And, please understand I don't mean just your decision but "smokers" in general. I understand from your previous posts that you are typically a considerate smoker as are several others. I do appreciate that greatly. Unfortunately, many more are not considerate, making it necessary to bring change to laws concerning secondhand smoke.
October 1, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
Outsider: All I am saying is that we should take everything with a little grain of salt. As you can see from this forum, some people on either side of this issue will say just about anything if it supports their cause, regardless of the facts.
I am not pointing the finger at anyone specifically -- certainly not you. I am just waiting for the time when we get past the smoking issue and on to something less complicated, like religion, abortion or the Seasonal Celebration :)
October 1, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Newsie (anonymous) says...
The CLASH site is a good example. I have no idea if the information is accurate or not. But, I do think that if it is put forth by a group with and agenda, then the message might be a little suspect.
The same can be said for a pro-ban site, in my opinion.
October 1, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
"I smoked in my youth, but given my family history and as I learned more, I chose to become a non-smoker (not an easy thing I might add!)."
How were you able to tolerate the watery and itchy eyes when you were a smoker?
"Grandma died of cancer and never once personally smoked."
Was Grandma's house tested for Radon, the number one cause of lung cancer of those that have never smoked?
I ask these things respectfully Penny. I'm not looking for another long discussion about the "facts" that have been beaten to death on all these threads about the issue.
I've stated in the past that I too come from a family that apparently possesses similar genes as BJ's family. My smoking Great Grandparents on both sides lived to be in their mid to upper 90's. My Grandparents did as well. My parents are in their 70's now. No blood related relative has carried oxygen bottles, nor suffered from emphezema or cancer, all lived in smoking households. My brothers and I were all around cigarette smoke from my father and an aunt in our youth. My next older brother suffered ear and throat problems, not from smoke though. The problems disappeared once his tonsils were removed. All four of us, ranging from 37 to 48 yrs of age became smokers, three of us still smoke. None of us have medical conditions, nor do our children.
Perhaps the medical studies being done on the effects of smoking should be done on healthy individuals not already afflicted with other maladies. This is one way I feel the studies are flawed and biased. According to the studies many have referenced in this crusade, your smoking could be blamed for your daughter's severe allergies and asthma. Do you believe that?
October 1, 2008 at 7:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Thanks, Penny. I agree with your premise that some people seem to be adversely affected by cigarette smoke while others seem to remain immune. It is also true that some folks have serious reactions to bee stings and some, like me, hardly notice other than the initial pain. Some folks take a drink or two of alcohol and become addicted. Others could drink all they wanted and never desire another. There are many people who are so allergic to peanuts they could die from eating just one, or even touching it or breathing the residue.
And therein lies my point. As unforunate as it may be, we can't legislate the banning of bees, liquor, or peanuts because some poor individuals suffer from their existence. Nor can we prevent people from choosing to use a legal consumer product, cigarettes, because some find them offensive or even aggravating due to personal health issues. Nor would it be fair, or even practical, to ban stores from selling peanuts or liquor because a few have adverse reactions.
I feel for you, I really do, but we must protect the freedom of choice, especially for the tavern owners. If bees can harm you, avoid bees. If peanuts can kill you, stay away from peanuts. If smoke bothers you, stay away from the few bars and restaurants in town that allow smoking. We all have that choice. Let's preserve that important right to choose.
We can't ban every product in our nation that bothers someone. I have a goofy cousin that gets physically ill and nauseous at the mere sight of beef liver, but even he isn't calling for a ban on liver.
October 1, 2008 at 10:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dhcc66 (anonymous) says...
bj, i agree. the human lung is a very efficient filter. kind of like your car's air filter or your home's air filter but better...right? question is bj, what happens after years and years of your "efficient filters" breathing in all kinds of stuff including smoke? think about the last time you changed that air filter and what it looked like.
too bad nobody made people with slide out, changeable lungs.
October 2, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (Gwen Larson) says...
Sorry, gang, but I didn't catch this thread early enough. 92 posts... y'all are on a roll. Let's move to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
October 2, 2008 at 7:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )