Provisions of the ordinance
Friday, April 3, 2009
If the smoking ban passes in Tuesday’s city election, smoking will be prohibited:
In any enclosed public places of business or places of employment.
“‘Public’ has a particular meaning under this ordinance,” City Attorney Blaise Plummer said. “It’s anywhere the public is invited or permitted to enter.”
Under this ordinance, public doesn’t mean it has to be public as opposed to private property.
“So under that definition, just about every place in Emporia that’s not a private residence is going to be a non-smoking area,” Plummer said. “Every enclosed building that’s not a residence is either a place of business or somewhere the public is permitted to enter.”
This includes restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, private clubs and fraternal organizations.
Within a distance of 10 feet outside main entrances used by the public (except employee-only entrances), open windows and ventilation systems of enclosed areas.
Plummer said this provision wouldn’t particularly apply to a pedestrian walking up Commercial Street with a cigarette.
“It’s just to put a limit to people congregating around an entrance to a building or around an intake area,” Plummer said. “Technically, it’s still a violation, but it’s probably not going to be something that would be able to be really enforced except to tell people that they shouldn’t walk that close to an open window, an open door, an intake.”
Smoking will be allowed in outdoor areas outside the 10-foot radius, provided those areas aren’t already non-smoking areas, such as sports stadiums.
“Even though it could be interpreted that way, the intent of the city commission was not to control smoking, for example, at a golf tournament,” Plummer said.
Smoking also will be allowed at parks, even during an event such as a band concert.
“A sponsor of an event can advertise it (as non-smoking),” Plummer said, “but I don’t think there’s any way we can enforce it.”
The 10-foot provision will not apply to entrances designated as employee-only entrances unless the employer wants to enforce it.
“It’s up to the individual employer if they want to enforce it at employee entrances,” Plummer said. “I should state that it would not be a good idea to mark every entrance as an employee entrance. ...”
Within a radius of 10 feet of any outdoor vending area.
In facilities and means of public transportation, including buses, taxis and public transit boarding and waiting areas.
In a residence used as a childcare, adult day care or health care facility. A house used as a day care will be covered under this ban even when no children are around.
Motels and hotels, except in cases where a person stays long enough to qualify the room as a residence.
“If someone rents a room long enough so they don’t have to pay the bed tax, then that would probably qualify it as a residence,” Plummer said. “I believe it has to be a seven-day continuous residency. Of course, it’s also up to a motel’s management whether they would allow that.”
Smoking will be allowed in:
• Private offices where the public is not normally invited or regularly enters.
• Private residences.
• Existing retail establishments whose primary business is the sale of tobacco products and new retail tobacco establishments that are located in a stand-alone building or do not share an entrance with another building with public spaces.
• Private cars.
madpoet (anonymous) says...
I don't care to breathe someone else's smoke, but this is just way over the top. It's pretty bad when private clubs can't decide on their own rules. I sure hope this fails.
April 3, 2009 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
butterfly (anonymous) says...
So finally people won't be smoking in the back room of Graves - a drug store by the way - and having the smoke float out into the store area where people are shopping. What a concept. Hope it passes!
April 3, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Medicine Shoppe (TWO locations)
Walgreen's
Walmart Pharmacy
Plenty of other options. Why give your money to a business that doesn't have an atmosphere that you like?
My kingdom for some commonsense!
I'll be voting NO.
April 3, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
Effective October 1, 2008, the sale of tobacco products is prohibited in all pharmacies in San Francisco (this includes Walgreen's, Rite Aid, etc.). The ban seems reasonable since these are the same locations that sell products to break smoking addictions and to relieve ailments caused by smoking.
http://drugtopics.modernmedicine.com/...
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
April 3, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EsqEB (anonymous) says...
Brian, Do you really think anyone cares what a bunch of San Francisco #@&&*$'s do? Everyone knows California has the most worthless legal system in the nation. I love it when an attorney cites a case from California and tries to persuade a judge it is persuasive. All you have to do is point out where it is from, and the judge tells the other attorney to move on.
Utilizing this philosophy no store should sell sweets and slim fast, caffeine and a pillow, peanuts and allergy medicine, birth control and baby formula, ex-lax and immodium, No-Doz and Unisom, dexatrim and chocolate...the stupidity that is California continues. Our only hope is you will all go bankrupt as an entire state as soon as possible.
April 3, 2009 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
Dear EsqEB -
Purposefully, I shared the information about the tobacco sales ban in SF because another reader had shared information about pharmacies. I felt it relevant since it's common knowledge that social trends that begin upon both coasts eventually (5-10 years later) begin to have a similar influence upon the Midwest.
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
April 3, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
butterfly (anonymous) says...
tolerance - i love how that word is used by people who say they are protecting their rights, when research shows their rights infringe on the health of others.
April 3, 2009 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Well, well, well...this will be a test for the several law offices in this town where the attorneys and secretaries smoke like chimneys, and the public must enter in order to conduct business. Hmmmm....
April 3, 2009 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Are the 98 or so "pot shops" for medical marijuana (of which I believe only 24 are registered dispensaries, according to San Francisco's Department of Public Health) affected by this?
LOL
April 3, 2009 at 3:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
Is it not interesting how the comments posted upon this website are more civil when the writer signs his/her name?
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
April 3, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Open_eyes, you beat me to it, haha. I find it absolutely ridiculous that CA is trying to legalize marijuana, while strengthening the cigarette ban!
April 3, 2009 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dale011 (anonymous) says...
So does this all seem more like what one would expect from the government in Russia than in Kansas? You won't be ticketed for walking down the public sidewalk with a cigarette, but you could be if you get too close to a door or open window. You can't smoke in any of the motel rooms unless you stay long enough to be a resident. You can't smoke in a frat house. I can't believe I'm reading this in the "free State". I'm not a smoker, but our civil rights are being taken away at a rate that is alarming.
Just vote no on this violation of civil liberties.
April 3, 2009 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
dale ????
matt ????
everyone???
except Brian!!
April 3, 2009 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And at the same time, they are pushing hard to legalize public consumption of marijuana in San Francisco:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article...
Quote from the above article:
"I think the outcome would be very healthy for California and California's economy."
Gee, think second-hand smoke from any of THAT could have an effect on a bystander that the bystander does not want?
LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
April 3, 2009 at 4:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
If Emporians are weak enough, apathetic enough, or foolish enough, to allow this needless and intrusive legislation become law in our city, then we will deserve the embarrassment and damage it brings.
To allow a few meddling matrons, and a henpecked husband or two, decide how you will live your personal life, and local business owners and private organizations conduct their business, is giving away for more power and control than anyone should be willing to accept.
The duty of special interest groups like CAE should be to inform, educate, and protect, not dictate and control.
The duty of our city commissioners is to protect us from reformist bullies like CAE, not assist them in their quest for power, control, and erosion of individual rights.
Emporia already has well-defined and effective smoking laws. No one is currently forced to endure the alleged hazzards of cigarette smoke. Don't allow yourself to be fooled, bullied, or lied to in order to satisfy egos and control issues of a few citizens with a deluded sense of self-worth and rightousness.
Emporians already reside in a healthful environment, so what do we gain if this ban is allowed to become law? Nothing.
If the overly-restrictive ban becomes law, what do we lose? Our dignity, self-respect, personal freedom, right to make our own decisions, jobs, and revenues.
Nothing to gain; much to lose.
Vote "NO" on April7.
April 3, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
What do you think Steve? Please enlighten us!!!
April 3, 2009 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
I feel sorry for those of you who have to have the government force you to be healthy, because you are too lazy to do it for yourself. That's what is wrong with the nation today, is that no one wants to take any personal responsibility. YOUR health is YOUR responsibility, not mine!
April 3, 2009 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
"Me too" Matt, but I am glad some said it!!
April 3, 2009 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
It's really hard for me to harm you if you're not there.
April 3, 2009 at 5 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Brian, I am glad you also have the stones to sign your name to your posts. But you are preaching to the wrong choir.
You probably moved out west to get away from the small town pace, and somewhat conservative values, or perhaps just a better job..
The majority who live here feel it's a good fit for them, and they really don't care about California, to most it's a joke.
I enjoy reading your take on your old hometowns issues.
Just don't be surprised when someone reponds in a negative way.
Steve
April 3, 2009 at 5:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
Crack you posted-
YOUR actions are YOUR responsibility, not mine!
But yet you still go to these places that put you in harms way. YOUR actions are YOUR responsibility CRACK, stay out of those places that allow smoking and you wont be harmed,You must have worn your helmet today,good for you,but did the post-it I stuck on your forehead help you remember?
Crack I sure hope you are an only child,because I don't think the human race could tolerate anymore like you.
April 3, 2009 at 5:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Blue_Dog (anonymous) says...
Great just what Emporia needs another rule we aren't "really" going to enforce. When they talk about it (the distance from the door) being really only a technical violation and not enforceable, that means you did a poor job of writing the law.
I like my rights. Yes, I do own a business and don't need to be told how to run it. VOTE NO!
April 3, 2009 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
What's good For the Town Royal is also good for the golf course and ANY city owned property. The 1st time I get sited I'll hop in my friends cart at the muni and cell phone in a complaint. If I see people smoking in a city park I'll call in a complaint. If I see someone on the sidewalk on commercial street, I'll call in a complaint. Let's see the equal protection amendment work in city court.
Steve
April 3, 2009 at 6:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
the above should have said smoking on the sidewalk.
April 3, 2009 at 6:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
toninj (anonymous) says...
I will be voting NO and not because I don't agree with a ban. I just don't agree with this ban. It is overboard; I think the best that can happen is for this to be voted out and the state to pass a statewide ban that is more reasonable.
April 3, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
Crack, slvrnblk and to all the others that ride the short bus;
Your health and welfare mean everything to me. Not just about shs but what you eat as well. Don't eat at fast food places, because of all the cholesterol, in the foods,stay away from your grill,because of all the shs that is involved there, from the smoke. Don't eat chicken,grilled broiled,fried,or any other means. The chicken farmer puts enough chemicals in their birds to kill a human,if eaten to excess. Stay away from fish,all the mercury and iodine in them is not good for you either. And Please don't eat the beef it could have mad cow.
I say this because I care, and I don't want to have to support your family if you pass away from these dangerous things. I want to have my tax dollars used on something worth while, like getting the economy back on track. I have something that is safe for all of you though, please follow this recipe as it has been around for many generations.
Boiled Water
Ingredients
4 cups water (tap or bottled, room temperature)
Directions
Pour water into pan. Turn heat to high. When water boils, remove from
heat and let cool. Use as needed. Yield: 8 half-cup servings.
NOTE: Not advised for use as a garnish.
CALORIES 0 (0% from fat); FAT 0g (sat 0.0g); CHOLESTEROL 0mg;
CARBOHYDRATE 00g; SODIUM 000mg (but can vary in some areas if using tap
water); PROTEIN 0g; FIBER 0.0g
I hope this helps all of you.
Brought to you by a concerned citizen
April 3, 2009 at 6:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dido1969 (anonymous) says...
Don't worry folks, in the end this will go into the dustbin along with the littering laws we don't enforce, the anti-noise law which we don't enforce, the no jay-walking law which we don't enforce, the leash law which we don't enforce, the speeding laws which we don't enforce, numerous traffic laws on a state highway (Commercial Street which is, of course Highway 99) like "J-turns" which we don't enforce, no skateboards on sidewalks which we don't enforce, anti-graffiti laws which we don't enforce...well, you get the picture...I'm sure with even a few moments thought you can add several of your own to the list.
April 3, 2009 at 6:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Rob, sorry for using your name, but your above post does'nt take into account the chlorine gas byproduct from boiling the water>
Steve
April 3, 2009 at 7:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Mr. Protheroe, you sir are an " OUTSIDER ", just like the " COLORADO KIDS " are " OUTSIDERS ". Why do you feel that you have to stick your " OUTSIDER " noses in where they do not belong or have any right interfering in local, or STATE OF KANSAS matters, IN SHORT, BUT OUT, we neither want you nor need you !
You may have been a KANSAN at one time but are no longer a KANSAS, so I say again to ALL OUTSIDERS, BUT OUT !
There are already, way to many " OUTSIDERS " involved in this issue in many different ways !
If you as citizens of Kansas and Emporia don't want to be dictated to, told how to live your lives, what you should believe, what, when and where you should or can do things by a few know it all, holier than thou, controlling, power hungry Emporia snobs and don't want to loose even one of your individual rights, freedoms, liberties and civil liberties because of a few selfish, know it all, holier than thou, controlling, power hungry Emporia snobs and their OUTSIDER funding and backing. Then the one and only vote to consider is definately a VOTE NO on Tuesday at the polls.
April 3, 2009 at 7:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pizza (anonymous) says...
Consider for a moment this scenario. Lets say the ordinance passes (God forbid) and some do-gooder calls in a report of a smoker 8 feet from the Town Royal front door. So here comes the fire truck and, at least, a couple of fireman, who have now been made into cops, and they proceed to arrest this sinner that is 8 feet from the door. Meanwhile someone's home is on fire and a needed truck is out on the important cause of arresting that sinful smoker. Had that truck been available perhaps the home could have been saved but the home was lost. Now suppose the angry homeowner sues the city for stupid allocation of resources and wins a large sum of money which is, of course, tax dollars from everyone. Now this should make Walters and others really proud of what they promoted....with tax dollars of course. I grant you that this scenario is maybe a litle farfetched but stranger things have happened. And this proposed ordinance is about as ridiculous. Vote NO.
April 3, 2009 at 8:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
Steve,
Thats ok, I am not ashamed of my name.
Your correct, silly me.
Sorry crack and crew. I thought I was on the right track to help you out. Darn, I guess we do need more government to show us the light. Wait I have it, I guess you could go vegetarian, nope just realized that the insecticides that they spray on the plants, same with fruit, all can cause cancer. Somebody please help,as I am in need to help out these people that can't fend for or think for themselves.
Rob
April 3, 2009 at 8:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
YY4U, GREAT question!
Here's another one: Did you know that Blaise Plummer, the City Attorney, is on the EDA board?
http://emporiansfordrugawareness.com/...
April 3, 2009 at 8:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
justamarine
I feel your pain. I too have tried to help these people help themselves so the government doesn't have to do it all for them but it seems to be an impossible task. What is it that makes us able to fend for ourselves? Perhaps it's the military training we recieved. We were taught to serve our country, not just to be served by it. "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
This veteran will be voting NO.
April 3, 2009 at 9:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks,
I agree with you and marine. I think that is why so many military people are against this is because it simply boils down to personal responsibility, which is one of the main values you get out of the military (at least I did). I was always told you are responsible for your own actions. If you go around second-hand smoke, be prepared to deal with the consequences. You are not forced to go there, therefore you don't have to be around it. If you do, that is on you, and there are consequences. The pro-people feel it is easier to have the government force you to be healthy than to be pro-active about it, and do it yourself.
April 3, 2009 at 9:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
Seriously,
Nicely stated,
But I think it started with my parents and grandparents, they brought me up to know the difference between right and wrong. They let me know what it was like to fail, so I would know what it felt like when I succeeded. If I got burnt lighting a firecracker in my hand, I could figure out that I needed to lay it on the ground next time, or get it out of my hand faster, or not light any firecrackers. They taught me how to think for myself.
When we were kids not everyone got a trophy for entering a sport, if you were good enough you were awarded, not for coming in 12th place. People, like this Group CAE wants everyone to be like them. It doesn't sit well with me, I am an individual. not a freaking robot. Just because when they were kids and did not win any awards is not our fault. They have the right to choose where they go. If they want to hang around people like us fine, but I will not give up my individual rights to accomodate them.
The militay taught us how to think outside the box,not to follow the norm,because if you did it could cost you your life.These people say well they are doing this in KCK, Denver, where ever else that might be. I suppose if KCK decided to blow itself up would Emporia want to do the same?
Emporia is not the same size town as these places where it is easy to get the revenue to come in. Emporia has lost businesses, jobs, housing, and not because of shs, Emporia sits in the middle of no where, 60min to Topeka,90 min to KC,and 80min to Wichita. People drive thru Emporia. The only things that keeps Emporia,Emporia are the industries, and the college. And people who go to college know how to read and are capable of making their own sound decisions on where they should and shouldn't go.
Don't get me wrong I love Emporia and hope and pray that the people will make the right decision and vote no.
April 3, 2009 at 9:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
.
April 3, 2009 at 11:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
Crack and crew-
Heres something that you should really be concerned about,along with the peanuts and shs,
ATLANTA - Traces of a chemical used in rocket fuel were found in samples of powdered baby formula, and could exceed what's considered a safe dose for adults if mixed with water also contaminated with the ingredient, a government study has found.
The study by scientists at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked for the chemical, perchlorate, in different brands of powdered baby formula. It was published last month, but the Environmental Working Group — a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy organization — issued a press release Thursday drawing attention to it.
The chemical has turned up in several cities' drinking water supplies. It can occur naturally, but most perchlorate contamination has been tied to defense and aerospace sites.
April 4, 2009 at 12:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
No tests have ever shown the chemical caused health problems, but scientists have said significant amounts of perchlorate can affect thyroid function. The thyroid helps set the body's metabolism. Thyroid problems can impact fetal and infant brain development.
However, the extent of the risk is hard to assess. The government requires that formula contain iodine, which counteracts perchlorate's effects. The size of the infant and how much formula they consume are other factors that can influence risk.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, aware of the debate over perchlorate in food and water, has not recommended that people alter their diet or eating habits because of the chemical.
The study itself sheds little light on how dangerous the perchlorate in baby formula is. "This wasn't a study of health effects," said Dr. Joshua Schier, one of the authors.
April 4, 2009 at 12:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
The largest amounts of the chemical were in formulas derived from cow's milk, the study said.
The researchers would not disclose the brands of formula they studied. Only a few samples were studied, so it's hard to know if the perchlorate levels would be found in all containers of those brands, a CDC spokesman said.
"This study provides no data on potential health effects of perchlorate. Health authorities continue to emphasize that infant formula is safe," said Haley Curtis Stevens of the International Formula Council, which represent formula manufacturers.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it was considering setting new limits on the amount of perchlorate that would be acceptable in drinking water. A few states have already set their own limits.
The agency issued a statement Friday saying perchlorate exposure is a serious issue and "a top priority" for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. EPA officials expect to announce a decision soon about future steps in dealing with the chemical.
The EPA has checked nearly 4,000 public water supplies serving 10,000 people or more. About 160 of the water systems had detectable levels of perchlorate, and 31 had levels high enough to exceed a new safety level the EPA is considering.
April 4, 2009 at 12:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
I think this would send up a flag;
Traces of a chemical used in rocket fuel were found in samples of powdered baby formula, and could exceed what's considered a safe dose for adults if mixed with water also contaminated with the ingredient, a government study has found. FOR ADULTS, THIS IS BEING FED TO BABIES
And this,
No tests have ever shown the chemical caused health problems, but scientists have said significant amounts of perchlorate can affect thyroid function. WHAT IS CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS?
How about this;
The study itself sheds little light on how dangerous the perchlorate in baby formula is. "This wasn't a study of health effects," said Dr. Joshua Schier, WHY NOT?
Or this;
The largest amounts of the chemical were in formulas derived from cow's milk, the study said, IT'S NOT JUST MAD COW ANYMORE ITS THE MILK
AND HERE IS THE KICKER;
The EPA has checked nearly 4,000 public water supplies serving 10,000 people or more. About 160 of the water systems had detectable levels of perchlorate, and 31 had levels high enough to exceed a new safety level the EPA is considering.
CRACK, do you feel any safer now that this could also be in your water?
April 4, 2009 at 12:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Moving to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
April 4, 2009 at 6:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )