Yes or No?
Friday, April 3, 2009
Bobbi Sauder provided answers for Clean Air Emporia.
Q Why do you think Emporia should or should not have a smoking ban?
A Secondhand smoke is a dangerous health hazard — a fact suppressed by tobacco companies for decades — but it can be mitigated simply by not allowing smoking indoors. This is made much easier because Emporia has the advantage of studying the results from hundreds of other cities who already have indoor smoking ordinances.
Their results show clearly that:
• Indoor smoking ordinances improve public health dramatically.
• Indoor smoking ordinances help reduce teenage smoking.
• Indoor smoking ordinances don’t harm business if a level playing field is created.
• Indoor smoking ordinances are easy to enforce with few violations.
• Do you think that published evidence about secondhand smoke supports the case for a smoking ban? Why or why not?
A Totally! The published scientific studies are vast, undeniable and, most importantly, completely documented. Most counter-claims offered by the opposition lack scientific basis.
The U.S. Surgeon General said in 2006, “There are no safe levels of secondhand smoke.”
The Surgeon’s Report was written by 22 experts, reviewed by 40 different peer reviewers and then sent to 30 scientists and experts reviewing the data for its scientific integrity. Revisions are made by scientific editors, institutes and agencies within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This report sets the standards and guides the U.S. by “sound science.”
Q Does the city have a legitimate interest in promoting public health?
A Absolutely! One of the most basic responsibilities of city government is to provide a safe and healthy environment for all its citizens. There has been a smoking ordinance on the Emporia books for years, but unfortunately it has been ineffective in combating second hand smoke.
This new indoor smoking ordinance, that replaces the old one, doesn’t mean more government; it means better government because it will provide a solution to the health issues created by secondhand smoke — the third leading cause of preventable death in America!
Steve Corbin answered for Emporia Open for Business.
Q Why do you think Emporia should or should not have a smoking ban?
A Emporia already has a smoking ban on the books, Ordinance 8716, which prohibits smoking in all public buildings, i.e., those owned by the taxpayers and run by the government — schools, hospitals, city and county offices, etc.
Privately held businesses must post a sign designating their business as non-smoking or smoking allowed. Smoking in a posted non-smoking business is against the law and could result in a monetary fine.
What we have now works.
Q Do you think that published evidence about secondhand smoke supports the case for a smoking ban? Why or why not?
A No! It is the dose of secondhand smoke that potentially makes it dangerous. And no business in Emporia has been tested to show levels of secondhand smoke toxicity exceeding those set by OSHA. I refer your readers to The Gazette article published Aug. 21, 2008, by Dr. Ralph Keller.
Q Does the city have a legitimate interest in promoting public health?
A Government does have an interest in protecting public health, not promoting it. This protection is already done by fire, building and health inspections on a regular basis. None of these inspections test for secondhand smoke because the levels of secondhand smoke in the air of any business would have to be unheard of to exceed the permissible level set forth by OSHA.
Also, if this is really about “promoting” public health, then why are state-owned casinos usually exempt from the bans?
difference_of_opinion (anonymous) says...
I understand Steve that you are against the city banning it from your bar, and probably your biggest argument is that you do not have the space to build a smoking area or beer garden outside where smokers could easily go to smoke with drinks in hand. It is going to take them away from the party and what a huge inconvenience! While this may be an inconvenience, it also shouldn't affect your business because it would be happening city wide. People will get used to it and they will adapt. It's working in several other cities. I see the problem with letting the owners decide is that people who choose not to smoke, like myself and my child, are being exposed to 2nd hand smoke when we do not choose to. Why is it o.k. for a smoker to violate my right to clean air because they can't keep their cigarette smoke from lingering into my space? How can they be expected to control their lingering cigarette smoke? They can't, therefore keeping it outdoors is the only way to keep it under control and keep the air indoors clean for everyone.
April 3, 2009 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Free4all (anonymous) says...
Why not put this to the back burner and support the state wide ban. This would be for the good of the whole state and not just one community. If we want a healthy place to live, lets get behind the state ban which seems more fair than what is proposed here in Emporia. Everyone I know, who dont smoke, plan on voting no because it is too restrictive to business owners and after looking at the state ban we all agreed it was fair to everyone and worth the backing.
April 3, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Free4all,
If this ban gets dropped, CAE and EDA will lose grant money. That's why its so important for them. They honestly don't give a rat's behind about public health. They would, probably, like to see some bars in Emporia close though.
April 3, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"I see the problem with letting the owners decide is that people who choose not to smoke, like myself and my child, are being exposed to 2nd hand smoke when we do not choose to."
Difference, good for your child for choosing to not smoke. Why are you bringing your child to the bar, though?
April 3, 2009 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I think Barnetts try at a state ban got smashed again in the legislature.
Done with it this year:)
April 3, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
Steve you're my IDOL!!
April 3, 2009 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
diff-opinion;
Tonight you have the option of going to 3 non-smoking bars in Emporia and who knows how many restaurants.
Smokers have a choice of 6 cafes/restaurants and maybe 10 bars. It is your choice as to which ones you go to. YOUR CHOICE! NO-One in Emporia is FORCED to endure exposure from SHS.
NO-ONE.
If this ban stands, smokers can still go to a bar but they will have to step outside to smoke. What about their rights?
If you have children keep them out of bars and the 1 or 2 adult dining establishments we have in Town.
This is only the start, next you will be complaining that you have to walk through that crowd of smokers standing outside
to get into your newly smoke-free hangout.
Steve
April 3, 2009 at 4:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dale011 (anonymous) says...
Follow the money - grant money for the proponents and fine money for the city. They might even be able to close a few establishments over being habitual offenders. Businesses will have to police the area outside of their doors to make sure no loiters are terrorizing honest citizens with deadly cigarette smoke. What a crock.
April 3, 2009 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
GEE WIZ Steve I never thought of that.......hmmmm??
April 3, 2009 at 4:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kittenslvsu (anonymous) says...
VOTE NO
April 3, 2009 at 7:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Bobbi Sauder ; You stated the following, " Do you think that published evidence about secondhand smoke supports the case for a smoking ban? Why or why not? "
I don't believe that the published evidence about secondhand smoke supports the ban because it is based on junk science.
And the following is why I say it is junk science !
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.
VOTE NO !
April 3, 2009 at 8:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Bobbi Sauder; Also stated, Indoor smoking ordinances don’t harm business if a level playing field is created.
How is a level playing field created, when some bars, restaurants, etc. do not have the extra property or space available to create and open air environment for their smoking clients and will be at a decided disadvantage ? Fair and imparshial, or a level playing field, I think not !
VOTE NO to this ridiculous and unnecessary smoking ban !
April 3, 2009 at 9:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
josiesbar hit the nail on the head. It's all about money and the grant funding that will be lost by CAE. It has ALWAYS been about the money, and not just a small amount either. Why wasn't Bobbi Sauder questioned about exactly where those grant funds come from?
April 4, 2009 at 8:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
create ; The following explains the pharmaceutical connection to the antismoking groups.
For this dissertation,
let us consider the investment in
antismoking activities by the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation,
philanthropic arm of Johnson &
Johnson, between 1992 and 2000 in
one nation alone, the United States:
well over 300 million dollars have
been invested by just one
multinational in financing
antitobacco activities and “grass
root” antismoking groups.
Even
more interesting is that the
antismoking activists never bother to
report their pharmaceutical funding,
and the most basic common sense
shows that multinationals such as
J&J do not invest hundreds of
millions of dollars solely on
humanitarian grounds. All that is
compelling proof that the use of
front groups and consultants is a
well established pharmaceutical
industry practice to diffuse its
marketing policies of smoking
cessation products.
If Bobbi Sauder or anyone of the CAE inner circle were to admit to their connection to BIG PHARMACEUTICAL money such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and how much money some of the CAE members, etc. were making off this smoking ban. What do you think that would do to their credibility or believeability ?
And how much of this Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grant money do you think the State legislators are getting to try and push a statewide smoking ban through ?
Do you suppose that some or any of our locol elected officials, have their fingers in the pie, in some matter, maybe not directly, but possibly through close business ties or friendships with some of the CAE higherarchy or members or supporters ?
Who if any of the CAE higherarchy, members, etc., made campaign contributions, etc. to any of our local State Senators or Representatives, who are pusing for a State Wide Smoking Ban, and did the campaign contribution money come from any money granted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and if so is that both legal and ethical ?
Valid questions or concerns, I believe so ! Political greed and corruption occurs, not only at the highest forms of government, but also at the State and local forms of government !
Stop the CAEs insanity against their fellow citizens.
VOTE NO !
April 4, 2009 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Johnson and Johnson are not only after controlling all nicotine products , they are also selling anti depressants and anti anxiety drugs. They are not just trying to demonize smokers, but want neighborhood gathering places to close. Anything that helps people to relax and enjoy life MUST be stopped. All Americans should be directed to a J&J pill to relax, to lose weight, to get up in the morning, and to go to sleep at night. THEY ARE NOT LOBBYING TO STOP THE SELLING OF NICOTINE PRODUCTS! IF THEY DID, NICOTINE REPLACEMENT SALES WOULD CEASE. NO NO NO NO NO NO I do not want to live in a country run by pharmaceutical or insurance companies. Yes, Blue Cross is in on this action too.
April 5, 2009 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
If you need Steve & Bobbie Sauder or Teresa Walters to make your decisions for you, vote yes.
If you have a mind of your own and value your rights,
VOTE NO
EARLY VOTING ENDS AT NOON MONDAY.
GET OUT AND VOTE AND VOTE NO!
Steve
April 5, 2009 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
Steve Says Vote NO!! or else.....
April 6, 2009 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )