Addressing the issue
Paul McKnab, Professor Emeritus, Emporia State University
Friday, April 3, 2009
I HAVE concerns about the debate on the smoking ban in Emporia involving the issues of scientific facts and business-owners’ rights.
Three scientific facts have been basic to the two sides in the debate. Fact one: There is no disagreement among scientists that smoking causes lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. Fact two: There is no disagreement among scientists that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. Fact three: There is no physical proof, in the form of specific names of victims, that secondhand smoke has caused lung cancer or killed anyone in any bar, tavern, restaurant or business in Emporia.
While all three of these facts are true, the third fact is not valid as applied to this debate. Where is the error? Let us examine two types of illnesses. First are the illnesses that strike very swiftly, resulting in symptoms within hours. Improperly prepared or maintained food or drink, dirty hands or dishes, and pest infestations are a few of the causes that can lead to immediate intestinal illnesses. These “immediate” illnesses do result in bodies at the emergency room of a hospital to receive treatment, followed by an investigation by public health officials, often resulting in the temporary closing of the offending establishment while it corrects the problem. To deal with this type of illness, society has passed laws that demand managers keep their establishments clean. Few disagree with the need for these laws.
There is a second type of illnesses caused by environmental pollutants such as coal dust, asbestos fibers, or tobacco smoke. These pollutants do not result in immediate illness. They do not yield immediate sick bodies to be counted and linked to specific times or places where the illnesses occurred. These illnesses develop over years as the pollutants attack and irritate parts of the body, such as the lungs. Society alleviates this type of illness by passing laws excluding pollutants from environments where the public congregates, including publicly owned facilities such as a schools, hospitals, or buses, and privately owned businesses that serve the public. For example, USD 253 addressed the asbestos and secondhand smoke issues a decade ago. It is now time for all environments that host the public to change.
My second issue in the current smoking debate is the right claimed by the business owners to operate their establishments as they see fit. Some owners asserted that if customers do not like their business methods, they could go elsewhere. The attitude of “take your business elsewhere,” combined with the fact other cities around the state have banned public smoking, is shortsighted, parochial, and harmful to the interests of Emporia. We must remember that not only do business owners have rights, but also citizens throughout the state have rights to choose whether they will spend their money in Emporia. When event planners are selecting a city to hold a family reunion, a business meeting, or a professional gathering, they must consider the wishes of the potential attendees who want smoke-free venues. The number of smoke-free cities in Kansas is growing larger, and many of these competitors for the visitors’ dollars provide very desirable facilities for celebrating and dining. These cities are certain to promote their healthy, smoke-free, citywide facilities. Do we want Emporia to be the “If you do not like it, take your business elsewhere” city?
Because of the potential increase in smoke-free health awareness in Kansas, I worry about two related and important groups from which Emporia might lose visitors. The first group is attendees at events sponsored by the Kansas State High School Activities Association, and the second is potential new students for Emporia State University. Emporia profits from the attendance of students and parents at a multitude of athletic, music, debate, forensic, and student government events sponsored by the KSHSAA. I worry, that in the future, there will be pressures and public relations efforts on the KSHSAA to consider whether a city is smoke-free, as one factor in awarding sites for their many events. Emporia provides first-class organization and hospitality at the events. Participants and visitors learn the town is “the right size,” student employment opportunities are available for the college-bound, and the new ‘beef” does not stink. Visitors to the campus are impressed with the students, faculty, and administrators they meet and the facilities they visit, including the dorms on campus and the private apartments surrounding the campus. However, when they go out to eat at our more popular restaurants with menus and waitstaffs, they find they are not in smoke-free environment they enjoy back home. They are surprised a progressive city like Emporia is behind the times.
The hospitality industry is the happy face of a town. That business sector provides the food, drink, and environments where patrons relax, smile and enjoy the town. It would be wrong if the smoking ban failed to pass and the attitude of “if you do not like it, take your business elsewhere” were to prevail. My hope is the affected components of the hospitality industry of Emporia would adopt business practices to fit the realities of the times if they want to help maintain and promote the financial and physical health of Emporia and their own business.
butterfly (anonymous) says...
well state, well debated. a voice of reason. i am sure the baulkers are lining up. but they can take their opinoin to the poles like the rest of us!
April 3, 2009 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bloomsbury (SC DIXON) says...
“I worry about two related and important groups from which Emporia might lose visitors. The first group is attendees at events sponsored by the Kansas State High School Activities Association, and the second is potential new students for Emporia State University.”
Hmmm, call the boys at "The Noose™"…since they’ve enacted their smoking ban their college crowd has dropped to virtually NIL…
It is amazing that people who don’t know the first thing about how a business such as a bar works are among the first to try and tell the bar owners how to run their businesses…for instance, do you know
How many licenses does it take to operate a bar in Emporia?
Roughly what is a “good” night in a local bar that doesn’t serve food, dollar wise?
Who supplies a bar with their stock of spirits? Are these the same people who provide beer?
On an average what does a good bartender earn per shift in Emporia? A good waitress? How much in wages, how much in tips?
Are there any requirements or background checks for employees in Emporia bars? For owners?
What are the legal operating hours for a bar in Emporia, who can be served and when,?
How important are visitors to Emporia to a bar’s business as opposed to a “regular” crowd, how much of the bottom line is provided by regulars?
Of course very bit of this information can be gleaned from numerous sources, but my point is this…if you don’t know the answers off the top of your head then you don’t really know diddly about how bars work and survive, you have no idea what a competitive business it is and you have know idea of the myriad rules and regulations involved. To put it politely, if you don’t know your subject matter, please butt out…pun fully intended.
April 3, 2009 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
“if you do not like it, take your business elsewhere”
If people would simply take their business elsewhere their would be no need for a ban because the business owners would know the true feelings of their potential costumers. It's sad that people don't make their wishes known verbally or with their patronage but are willing to use the government to be their strong arm. If the business market doesn't reflect the wishes of the people, the people have failed to make their wishes known. I personally don't smoke or drink, I wouldn't mind at all living in a society that was absent of both these things. I don't support businesses that have these things. That is how it is supposed to work. I have a hard time understanding how someone could believe that shs is killing folks left and right and continues to support a business that allows smoking. Yes, business owners have a responsibility to their customers, but customers also have a responsibility to the owners to let them know how to better serve them. It has been said by a few business owners on the forums that they think they know their customers pretty well. Maybe they don't! Maybe the customers have failed to let them know their feelings. It is a shame that it has had to come to this. I really hope that this ban is voted out and I hope that the citizens of this town would use the free market properly. “if you do not like it, take your business elsewhere” That is exactly how it's supposed to work and that's exactly what I do.
I'll be voting NO.
April 3, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bloomsbury (SC DIXON) says...
Why the attack on Steve, am I missing something, have some posts been removed?
Why can't you folks behave in less aggressive manner, you accomplish nothing but venting your own frustrations...I fear you will be lost after April 7th, regardless how it goes...
rbow, your closing line, "Vote YES and put an end to the ignorance, intolerance, greed, and hate..." I fear your vote will not, unfortunately, accomplish any of those things...you seem so full of hate yourself I don't think anything as simple as a vote will help. It is too bad we cannot have intelligent conversations here, instead of personal vitriol.
April 3, 2009 at 1:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
difference_of_opinion (anonymous) says...
" How many licenses does it take to operate a bar in Emporia?
Roughly what is a “good” night in a local bar that doesn’t serve food, dollar wise?
Who supplies a bar with their stock of spirits? Are these the same people who provide beer?
On an average what does a good bartender earn per shift in Emporia? A good waitress? How much in wages, how much in tips?
Are there any requirements or background checks for employees in Emporia bars? For owners?
What are the legal operating hours for a bar in Emporia, who can be served and when,?
How important are visitors to Emporia to a bar’s business as opposed to a “regular” crowd, how much of the bottom line is provided by regulars?"
I worked in an Emporia bar, have frequented and been a regular and can answer almost every one of these questions...but I do not understand what relevance they have to allowing or banning smoking in a bar. If it is a city-wide ban then no other bar is going to have any other advantage over any other which means you get to keep your regulars and your profits. I can't see a Townie going to Beer:30 just because they have a beer garden they can smoke in while drink in hand. Do you really think those people (your regulars) are going to sit at home and miss the social aspect of going to the bar just because they can't smoke inside the bar? I highly doubt it. I think the proper statement here is if you don't know how to make your subject matter relevant then butt out.
April 3, 2009 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dido1969 (anonymous) says...
"If it is a city-wide ban then no other bar is going to have any other advantage over any other which means you get to keep your regulars and your profits.... I can't see a Townie going to Beer:30 just because they have a beer garden they can smoke in while drink in hand."
Completely wrong. Town Royal has no space for an outside area, the city owns the parking lot, not Corbin…so some bars will have outside areas like The Noose, others will not. That, my friend, is quite an advantage indeed.
"Do you really think those people (your regulars) are going to sit at home and miss the social aspect of going to the bar just because they can't smoke inside the bar? I highly doubt it."
Wrong again…Ireland and England and Germany are seeing pubs close that have been in operation for HUNDREDS of years, and yes, it is precisely because of the smoking issue. Germany in particular is going to have another look at their ban and there is a great likelihood they will revamp it considerably.
"I think the proper statement here is if you don't know how to make your subject matter relevant then butt out."
I think his point is entirely relevant…obviously your being obtuse or deliberately misunderstanding the point…which is literally to mind ones own business…if you don’t know anything about farming, don’t set policy for those who do, or for any other businesses. In case you missed it, and obviously you did, if you don’t own or operate a bar this is not your concern. Your concern is as a customer and if they’re not doing business to your liking, stay away from them…you’re in a very powerful position.
April 3, 2009 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
bloomsburry;
Where, what Who?
I can assure you that no post of mine here said Vote Yes.
Slow down and read I believe that was cracks line.
Steve
April 3, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
April 3, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink )
gooseylucy (anonymous) says...
Dr. McKnab, thank you for a very well written article. You have "hit the nail on the head". I can't count the # of posts, where the ban supporters have asked for names or #'s of people killed by SHS. Which is like asking to "see the air" we breathe. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
April 3, 2009 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
goosey;
Your name says it all.
I for 1 am glad that Paul is retired and not teaching young people to let government make their choices for them.
April 3, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
"Yeah for Steve!?"
April 3, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"My hope is the affected components of the hospitality industry of Emporia would adopt business practices to fit the realities of the times."
The reality of the times? Are you serious? You do realize that right now the national unemployment rate is the highest its been in 25 years, right? You do realize this is the largest contraction of the US economy since the great depression, right? What "business practices" would you suggest to "affected components" of the hospitality industry? You seem to be such a smart business man, what new business strategies would you suggest?
Maybe all of the "affected components" should go in front of the City Commission and ask for a 10-million dollar bailout, in order to "maintain and promote the financial and physical health of Emporia and their own business."
My guess is you haven't set foot in a bar in years, and probably haven't seen reality in about that long, either. Realities of the times, LAUGHABLE!
April 3, 2009 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
butterfly (anonymous) says...
uhm....well I guess if the bars run out of business that is two birds with one stone isn't it?
bummer.
April 3, 2009 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"uhm....well I guess if the bars run out of business that is two birds with one stone isn't it?"
crack, any comments on this one? Anyone else going to comment on this one? I'm about to comment on this one, but it will get pulled, because it probably isn't going to be very nice. Come to think of it, this comment REALLY makes me want a cigarette right now, because I am getting really, really upset.
Much better. This is their agenda. They haven't come out and said it until now, but yeah. They don't care about public health. They want every business in town to cater to them, and they want to close the ones they don't like, or the ones that oppose their views.
My comment to them is two words. Get Bent.
April 3, 2009 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Professor Emeritus
It's just like you liberals that teach college to suspect it is only about the smoke. It is and always has been to me and many others about personal rights.
My and their right to run a privately owned business that they pay the taxes on. Not you, not crack or waltters or anyone but the person who owns the buiness.
The people who don't like smoke have a choice and the people who don't care have a choice of where to go.
The owner should have the choice of giving them said choice.
PS I bet crack had to call in sick to work today with all the shs in the air.
April 3, 2009 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
April 3, 2009 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
If you ignore it long enough it will go away.
April 3, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
Steve buddie are talking to me???? Am I beating are your own game????
April 3, 2009 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dale011 (anonymous) says...
well written from a protectionist viewpoint Prof. McKnab, however, the point of most of the opponents to the ban is not about health reasons. The point we keep attempting to make is that this is a violation of our civil rights regardless if we smoke or not. A personal choice is being taken away by government supposedly in our best interest. I don't take that lightly and neither do most that are against the ban.
April 3, 2009 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
The CAE people say they are doing this so I can't make them unhealthy. My question to them is this. What are you doing yourself to make yourself healthy? How many miles a day are you walking, or running, or riding your bike? Drive by any school Monday. How many bikes do you see in the bike racks? How many times a month do you say Supersize It at the drive through? I fail to comprehend the fact that people complain about being healthy at a bar.
I've been asked on here "So, you mean you just don't care about my health, right?"
My answer-- NO! I really don't. If I'm sitting at a bar, drinking a beer, then your health is honestly the last thing on my mind. I'm going to be thinking more about going fishing, or golfing, or the pool game, or how messed up my NCAA bracket is, or whatever! YOUR health is YOUR responsibility, not the government's!
If you are sitting in a bar, and you feel concerned about your health, you probably shouldn't be sitting in a bar. If you are working in a bar (or anywhere for that matter), and you feel concerned about your health, then you probably shouldn't be working there! I find it absolutely astounding that you people cannot comprehend this!
Matt
April 3, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
"Power to the people!"
April 3, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
This is interesting. I sent a literate and intelligent letter to The Gazette opposing the ban. I asked them to publish it. They refused, saying it was "way too long, nearly 500 words, and our limit is 300 words." My letter was half the length of Mr. McKnab's entry.
CAE, smoking ban, city commissioners, The Emporia Gazette. It seems fairness is subject to personal definition in this neck o' the woods.
This issue isn't about health; it's about rights.
Vote "NO".
April 3, 2009 at 4:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
Matt,
Nicely stated
Rob
April 3, 2009 at 5:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
It's difficult for me to understand how a Professor Emeritus would make an argument for the ban on the basis of business development. If Professor McKnabb really believes that people considering attending events here in Emporia make their decisions based on whether or not folks are smoking down at the Town Royal there is a real disconnect.
I think what this whole issue points out is the serious disconnect between this city's elites and it's working class. One of the things I think that really grates on the elites is the notion that someone at a local watering hole is doing something they look upon with utter contempt, to the point of viewing it as a moral or social evil. They have built their lives on the assumption that they live their lives "ex cathedra." They believe they have no vices of their own that the rest of the community needs to legislate. They believe themselves to be socially conscious, virtuous, as opposed to the riff raff down at the Town Royal.
As I see it, their support of this ban has little to do with social consciousness and far more to do with compulsion.
April 3, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoehorn (anonymous) says...
People that use the word "progressive" scare me.
April 3, 2009 at 5:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
spectator (anonymous) says...
I guess I don't understand why the Kansas State High School Activities Association would be concerned about someone having a cigarette in a bar. Are the parents of the school athletes going to go hang out at the bar while the athletes just do whatever? The parents, and fans of KSHSAA are pretty much wrapped up in the event and then getting home. And if I were sitting in the bar, having a drink and a cigarette, ( I probably won't - I don't smoke) would I be terribly worried about your health? No, your health is your business. The place where I'm having this drink and (imagined) cigarette is the business of the person who owns it. Not yours. If it's a 'smoking' establishment and it offends you, you are free to excercise your right to go elsewhere. Someone posted that *most* places are smoke free - what's the big deal about railroading the few smoking allowed places to change? And as I said elsewhere, where are all the non smokers that were going to come out of the walls and patronize the businesses that went smoke free just recently? Sorry, Professor, nice article but I'm still voting NO. Because I don't believe it's really about shs - it's about control of some people by others.
April 3, 2009 at 5:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
josiesbar posted:
" "My hope is the affected components of the hospitality industry of Emporia would adopt business practices to fit the realities of the times."
The reality of the times? Are you serious? You do realize that right now the national unemployment rate is the highest its been in 25 years, right?..........."
You said it, Matt, but didn't quite see it. The realities of the times IS unemployment. This proposed ban is in keeping with that, as has been proven by the many bars closing in Europe and the US due to comprehensive smoking bans. These over educated ninnies just want us to "keep up with the times." Isn't that nice of them?
shoehorn:
Right on!!!!
April 3, 2009 at 6:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reets (anonymous) says...
This entire debate is symptomatic of what I call the Santa Claus Syndrome, which is very similar to the Daddy Complex, wherein somebody else makes all the decisions for you, protects you from potential harm, & doesn't take off the training wheels until you're at least 30something. There are such fervent postings on this topic, some intelligent and some stupid on both sides, but definitely ardent. I'm voting NO for a variety of reasons, first and foremost, for the violation of civil rights. The current laws already work just fine. If the ban passes, what's next? No smoking anywhere, ever? What else will you no longer be allowed to do in the privacy of your own home 10 years from now? I've never stepped foot in "Whispers", for instance, and probably never will, but should I ever find myself doing so, I would be completely out of line for raising a self-righteous fit over the merchandise. Who knows - what if I find myself in need of an inflatable car companion? I'll be glad there's a place in town where said item can be purchased. Leave it alone, and get over yourself. We've become so litigious & over-protective, our kids are having a hard time Growing Up. Vote NO - we don't need more laws. Except maybe one for the folks with their cell phones glued to their ears as they barrel through a 4-Way stop, or back out from Graves' chatting away, totally oblivious of adjoining traffic.
April 3, 2009 at 6:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
Wonderfully, wonderfully written, Dr. McKnab!
Anti-ban supporters claim the opposition to smoking at restaurants, etc. is a "personal preference"....So what do you call demanding being able to smoke in the presence of others? I would call that a "personal preference" as well....
The only reason anyone has ANY rights, including this so-called civil right to smoke, is because they are American citizens. When American laws change, so must its citizens. People can fight over this all they want but the fact of the matter is, Emporia WILL be non-smoking whether our ban passes or it is enforced by the State next year and the science that opponents try so hard to ignore will be vindicated.
April 3, 2009 at 6:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
The only reason anyone has ANY rights is because the military stands the watch! Don't take any of MY rights from me.
April 3, 2009 at 8:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I am wondering just how tight Professor McKnab is with the CAE, its head T. Walters, Steve Sauder & Company, or any of the members and supporters of the CAE, etc. and I wonder who gouded or possibly paid him to right such a post.
Professor, sir, what is your expert take on the following statement ! I am of course, assuming that you are a leaned scientest and have done many tests on smoking and ETS.
For a study to be
scientifically reliable and credible,
three fundamental guarantees must
apply:
1. To have measured only what it
intended to measure
2. The variables examined are the
only differences between the
measured phenomenon (case) and
what is taken as zero risk sample
(control)
3. The results can be reproduced
by other laboratories
None of the studies on smoking –
especially passive smoke – can
claim to have met even one of those
conditions, thus they do not qualify
as reliable science – let alone as the
basis for propaganda campaigns and
public policy making. If the above
conditions are not met, the numerical
risk elevation (whether it is 1.01 or
10) becomes irrelevant.
However, as we have seen, the
WHO and its pharmaceutical
partners choose to ignore those
fundamental points, to simply
overstep well-established scientific
practices, and to apply junk science
to public policy.
Please enlighten us as to what qualifies as junk science and non-junk science.
April 3, 2009 at 8:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
VOTE NO !
April 3, 2009 at 8:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
USNretired
I was thinking the same thing.
This veteran will be voting NO.
Dido69 posted
"Your concern is as a customer and if they’re not doing business to your liking, stay away from them…you’re in a very powerful position."
This is absolutely right! Why would someone continue to do business in a place that offends them so much? It makes no sense at all.
April 3, 2009 at 8:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
(the new ‘beef” does not stink.)
Either you live on the other end of town,or you have become accustom to the smell. Because that smell is still there.
April 3, 2009 at 8:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
esu4life (anonymous) says...
After reading the opinions of the citizens of Emporia about the smoking ordinance I have become convinced that Darwin's theory was correct. After all, these are the same people who placed Intelligent Design in the school curriculm. Intelligent, I rest my case.
April 3, 2009 at 8:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
With a name like ESU4life, I'm not sure I would be commenting on other people's intelligence. I think you have enough to worry about concerning your own.
April 3, 2009 at 9:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
esu4life
Yes it does seem rather unintelligent for people that feel that shs is killing them to continue to go around it. If all the people people that are affraid of shs would simply avoid smoking allowed establishments they(the smoking establishments) would either either "evolve"(go nonsmoking) or become "extinct"(go out of business). That is unless a market still remains for smoking allowed establishments. That was the point of your post, wasn't it?
April 3, 2009 at 9:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Gearratio (anonymous) says...
For years I was a bartender at bar/restaurant in Emporia, and even though there was no nonsmoking section in the bar the smokers would always put themselves in the corner. I guess they were trying to be friendly with their SHS, but we now know they were still causing inflammation in my lungs with carcinogens that can lead toward cancer. I think it would have been more fun to have them out front and better for business if they were at the bar, but they were trying to be “safe”. Nowadays knowing that nonsmoking sections are worthless, how often do nonsmokers think “Let’s take our party someplace safe”? And there are “safe” places to go, but not in Emporia.
If this is about business then let me tell you what life is like in a town that doesn’t allow smoking in businesses. The bars are packed. Everybody is more social and friendly; there are no exclusive cliques that develop. The restaurants’ food tastes better. I never hear heard a motion to repeal the law, cause it works with no side effects. Even the smokers here like it; I have asked my friends who smoke.
April 3, 2009 at 9:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Speaking of evolution, I'd like to address this ban from a natural selection viewpoint. I don't believe that theory myself, but for the sake of argument (which is always so fun) I'll assume it could be a possibility. So! If natural selection occurs, then someone like myself would be the "fittest" of the species as I do not engage in smoking, drinking, etc., and I ALSO avoid exposures to them. If this ban is enacted, my less fit counterparts get to muddy up the gene pool for a longer period of time. Those who avoid the behaviors--or just that one "nasty" one--but do not avoid the exposure are less fit than I, and I don't think it's fair to natural selection, that a law preserves them longer. It would seem that these lesser of the species are aware of their deficiency, and believe that they can pose and fool nature by passing a law to make the species protect them, rather than protecting themselves with natural strength--avoidance.
Of course, that would then lead to the theory that I have INTELLIGENCE!!! It's all such a vicious cycle ; )
April 3, 2009 at 9:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
gemini;
Your state ban, NEXT YEAR will be a far cry from what barnett tried to railroad through this year.
We will try everything we can to send him back to PRIVATE PRACTICE.
April 3, 2009 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Gearratio, or whatever:
If you have never heard a resolution to repeal a smoking ban you are living in a void. It is happening all over the United States of America. vote like you want, I'm tired of arguing with dumb-s-es.
April 3, 2009 at 9:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Steve, nice.
I want someone to tell me how Barnett can possibly think he represents Emporia, when 4 days before the public election on the smoking ban, he's trying to push a state-wide one through in Topeka. Especially trying to sneak it through the way he did. Ohh well, guess we'll find out tomorrow morning at Eggs and Issues, won't we? :-D
Matt
April 3, 2009 at 10:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Gearratio (anonymous) says...
Rbow, or whatever:
I think the point of this is not that all over America voting bans are being repealed, but the opposite all over America smoking bans are becoming enacted. A lot of that can be explained by a 2004 report by the U.S. Surgeon General found "smoking bans were unlikely to harm businesses in practice, and that many restaurants and bars might see increased business". A poll taken in NYC showed that at a rate of 6 to 1, people eat at restaurants more because of its smoking ban.
April 3, 2009 at 10:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Geraiatto;and you were a bartender for years? Please tell us where? Did that bar last more than a year or two? And you lasted for years? Let's see, to be a bartender you have to be 21 or older. You couldn't make the decision yourself?
You sound like the dumb a-- who sued Miky-d's for buying a cup of coffee at the drive through and held it in their lap, & then sued them because it was hot, and scaulded their privates when they stopped suddenly. Please don't tell me you recieved masters degree from ESU?
Steve
April 3, 2009 at 10:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
brightliner (anonymous) says...
rbow, why so ugly? Gearration was just sharing his experience and you attack him and call him a dimb a- -. Is it that no one is able to have a differing opinion from you? You asked for and are getting your public vote. The system is working just as it was designed (whether you like the design or not). Are you so afraid you might lose you have to attack everyone who doesn't agree with you? Relax man - take a deep breath before you need oxygen all the time.
April 3, 2009 at 10:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
gearratio;
We also had a surgeon general that advocated teaching masturbation to teen-agers to stop the spread of aids. You are putting all your cards in his hands?
April 3, 2009 at 10:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
oh4
Your post does nothing for my humility as I to am apparently more evolved than those who know better but chose to go around these dangers anyway. I also don't engage in smoking, drinking, etc. If only those less evolved than us would just listen. ;)
This shiny new species is voting NO.;)
April 3, 2009 at 10:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
The anti smoking crowd, (why do we keep saying anti smoking, they are NOT anti smoking) will be feeling VERY uneasy right now. Do not be surprised at ANY tactic, no matter how low, they will stoop to to steal this election. They can afford to say anything now, as we have little time to call them out on their fabrications. These people are well funded, and have no qualms about any stretching of the truth. They feel like the newspapers and radio stations have been well paid and will support their agenda. Hold on to your hat, Emporia. The next few days WILL get to levels of hysteria not seen so far. You may be told that SHS is killing puppies. It may be causing male pattern baldness. You just watch and see.
April 3, 2009 at 10:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"The system is working just as it was designed "
Yes, but it never should have come to this. If the people that are afraid of shs would have stopped spending money at places they believed were killing them then those places would have either changed or gone out of business. That's how the system is supposed to work.
Yeah yeah yeah. You know I'm voting NO.
April 3, 2009 at 10:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
briteliner'
I am relaxed, and on two liters right now. I didn't call him a dumb-a--, I said he sounded like it.
And before you go any further about my oxygen you had better know my medical records, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am not afraid we will lose the election, I just want an election. One way or another I will abide by the voice of the majority. After all that is the American Way.
Steve
April 3, 2009 at 10:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
brightliner (anonymous) says...
cool man, just be cool.........
April 3, 2009 at 10:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Since when does the Surgeon General know squat about business? Isn't that the Attorney General's job????
Sorry for the ego inflate, seriouslyfolks! It gets difficult to avoid around here sometimes. Fortunately, alot of the pro side on here isn't even from here, so fingers crossed that we have more "fit' humans around here than "unfit."
April 3, 2009 at 10:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
Steve,
I talked to cracks bus driver and he has agreed to let me drive the bus for him tomorrow.Do you think you could round up crack and his crew of bobble heads and meet me at the court house? I am going to take them to some communist country where the government will wipe there butts for them. I will need help with the gas money though, so any donations would be appreciated.
The bus driver wants to come to your bar and light one up and have a good stiff drink. He says he can't take all that slobbering that's going on the bus. The poor guy needs a break.
Rob
April 3, 2009 at 10:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
Steve, and please pick up 2 packs of nicorette for me,as I do not want to hurt anyone.
April 3, 2009 at 11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
joecitizen (anonymous) says...
Hey professor! Guess i missed ESU banning smoking on campus, hungry for more students.
April 4, 2009 at 12:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
moving to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
April 4, 2009 at 6:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )