Emporia now has a smoking ban.
After nine months and volumes of commentary from both sides of the issue, the ordinance was voted in by a margin of six votes.
Lyon County Clerk Tammy Vopat announced the results of the vote canvass Friday afternoon at the Lyon County Courthouse.
After Tuesday’s election, the results gave ban supporters an 11 vote margin, with 2,336 votes in favor of a ban and 2,325 votes against.
After provisional ballots were counted, the final results were 2,369 in favor and 2,363 against.
An earlier Gazette article put the start of the ban at midnight tonight, but city attorney Blaise Plummer said that technically, the ban is in effect as of right now.
“Actually, it’s in effect as soon as (Vopat) certifies the election after the board of canvassers,” Plummer said. “ ... There was a little bit of confusion when we were asked about that. ... We’re not saying it was an error on (The Gazette’s) part, we’re saying that when we were asked we didn’t really know when they were going to make that decision.”
Plummer said the city’s primary efforts right away would be to aim for voluntary compliance from the public and from business owners instead of issuing citations.
“Tonight I’m not sure we’re going to be doing inspections, we’re not going to be doing anything special,” Plummer said. “... I can’t speak for any specific situation, but for the most part we’re going to let people know they need to get their signs up, they need to pick up their ashtrays and that kind of thing,”
“We’ve been out ahead of time and talked to business owners and everything, ... and business owners might as well just start it in effect because it will be in effect this weekend.”
Steve Corbin, owner of Town Royal and vocal member of ban opponents Emporia Open for Business, said he doesn’t plan to file for a recount, but other members of EOB might.
“Six votes is six votes,” Corbin said at the Lyon County Courthouse after the result was announced. “I want to congratulate Tammy and her crew for doing a great job on the election. I think everything was fair and above board, and I just wish more people would have gotten out and voted.”
From the beginning, the argument has been divided between those who saw the ban as a public health issue and those who saw it as one of a right to choose.
Emporia State University students Deanna Roose and Jenna Hinkley were at the courthouse to hear the results announced. Both said they were in favor of a ban, citing concerns about the health effects of secondhand smoke.
“As a college student and a non-smoker, I don’t think it’s fair for smokers to talk about their rights when their smoking is affecting my health,” Roose said.
Hinkley agreed.
“Everybody’s talking about rights, but why should I suffer even though I choose not to smoke?” Hinkley said.
Jeremy McMannis saw the issue differently.
“I think we’re moving backwards,” McMannis said. “It’s freedom of choice. It goes back to the Constitution. Our rights are being taken away.”
Vopat said anyone wishing to apply for a recount has until noon Monday to file at the Lyon County clerk’s office.
Filers will be required to post a $250 bond. If the recount changes the result of the question, the county will absorb the cost; if there is no change, the party calling for the recount will be responsible for the cost.
Ban opponent and EOB member Matt Slater said he also does not plan to challenge the count.
“The people got to choose, the people made the decision,” Slater said. “It came down to the wire. As far as I’m concerned, I’m not going to try and challenge the decision. I think the results are sound, so I don’t think there’s any reason to.”
nosam9 (anonymous) says...
I voted against this ordinance even thou I do not smoke. The thing I want to know is did all the people who went to the polls understand the question on the ballot. I almost voted yes because of the way it was worded but then I remembered it was to be NO. So did anyone else maybe vote YES because they did not understand the wording of the question on the ballot?
April 11, 2009 at 8:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
There would be no way to prove if someone mistakenly voted the wrong way. I don't live in town so didn't see how the question was worded. I know on KVOE they made sure to point out NO was to block the ordinance and YES was to approve it. I hope they don't start nailing people right away on smoking. I'm not sure now what is allowed in work places. Are separate smoking rooms ok? Some places don't have safe outdoor areas to smoke in. I think the whole thing goes way too far. And I'm not a smoker.
April 11, 2009 at 10:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Separate smoking rooms are not OK. Even a tiny auto repair shop will be criminilized for smoking. The City Council let this start. All they had to do was tell the busybodies that if THEY wanted this that THEY would have to do the petition. I guess we know who THEY serve here. I'm sure that Gwen, and the Gazette, would love for everyone to forget their complicity in this. I'm sure that Walters and Hellebust have assured the paper that the lovely ads will continue for awhile. I'm sure they don't want to lose the revenue. Hellebust and her friends at the Tobacco Free Kansas private foundation, have still not returned calls concerning their "study", and have not disclosed the money that they and their partners at the Kansas HEalth Foundation, another private drug funded group, pumped into the Gazette and radio ads. If the City COuncil doesn't want this invasion into private property enforced they simply need to tell the PD that it IS NOT a priority. Shame on those three COuncil people, and the Gazette. The pro ban people were just doing what they were paid to do. A paper with the history of the Gazette should not have lowered itself into the muck!
April 11, 2009 at 11:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SFIns (anonymous) says...
Where can I see a list of donors to EOB. Has it been disclosed yet?
April 11, 2009 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mwbjjohnson (anonymous) says...
I voted for the ban, I am looking forward to bowling without breathing someone else's pollution.
Once I was on a bowling team and a woman in the next lane would have smoked two at a time if she could, she was a chain smoker and my lungs were on fire. I am now happy she will have to smoke somewhere else.
Where will the smokers go if they want to bowl, outside the door? That is not an answer. Those fumes will find their way inside again.
April 11, 2009 at 1:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mwbjjohnson (anonymous) says...
I read your comments and agree that the language of the bill was very confusing. I had to ask for assistance understanding the wording. Good point
Anonymous wrote: I voted against this ordinance even thou I do not smoke. The thing I want to know is did all the people who went to the polls understand the question on the ballot. I almost voted yes because of the way it was worded but then I remembered it was to be NO. So did anyone else maybe vote YES because they did not understand the wording of the question on the ballot?
April 11, 2009 at 1:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
orlando (anonymous) says...
I also thought that the wording of the ballot was deceiving. I just knew I wanted to vote 'no'. My spouse was confused about whether the yes meant no. It could and should have been written much clearer.
Many thanks to the EOB and others for bringing this whole issue to the forefront. I think the CAE thought it was a done deal initially. I am not a smoker, but thought the old ordinance was quite sufficient. Now more govt interference.
Again, sincere thanks to all who made people think about this!
April 11, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
SFins:
What would you like to know? As a member of EOB I may be able to answer your questions on donors.
The report is not legally due until Dec.31, 2009, however we would be happy to release it earlier if CHE releases their report, including the amount of Tobacco Free Kansas ads ran on one local radio station.
Steve Corbin
EOB
April 11, 2009 at 3:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jcook66801 (anonymous) says...
Sorry for the cross-posting
I am against this ban.
I voted against this ban.
I agree that it is nothing more than a loss of rights.
However, I disagree with all who believe the process doesn't work, A group believed that the ban was necessary and took to to the city commission. The commission approved the ban. Another group disagreed and took the steps to allow the citizens of Emporia the right to vote on this ban. The ban passed by a majority of those who voted.
That's that. The public -- at least those who cared to -- voted for the ban. Majority rules. You can whine, groan, complain, accuse all you want. However, it was the citizens, not a group of people and not the city commission that ultimately favored the ban.
For those of you who live in the county and think they should have had a vote, you should have asked for a county-wide ban so that you could have had your say. You didn't and now you must live with the results.
You can complain all you want about the process, about The Gazette "screwing it up," about who is in whose pocket, etc. The bottom line is that must of the people who really cared about this issue -- one way or another -- voted for the ban.
As for me, I will be in my favorite Sixth-Street bar, drinking my beer. The only difference is when I need a cigarette, I'll be stepping outside.
Y'all got exactly what you asked for. Now live with it.
April 11, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Free4all (anonymous) says...
Exactly right, the system did its job and instead of it just going through with the commissioners anouther group of people spoke up and we got it to public vote where it did win. I dont 100% agree with it either and think the State ban that got put on the back burner was more fair to all involved. But that doesnt matter any more and both sides worked very hard and fought for what they believed in. We do have the right to voice our opinions and fight for what we believe in. I can remember a group in Topeka fighting a new law that said no open containers in cars. It was a huge deal that many thought was an infringement on their rights also. In 10 years we might look back and see it as the same thing, not as big as it might seem at the time.
April 11, 2009 at 8:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
generalsn (anonymous) says...
Ohio's ban promised to leave family businesses and vets clubs out. These ban lobbyists use nothing but lies and deceit. After several years, they're STILL trying to get their ban amended as originally worded in the ballot.
April 12, 2009 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
builderboy (anonymous) says...
I would like to say that I do voted for the ban. I must admit it was a very difficult decision for me to make. I, like most of the people in EOB own my own small business in Emporia. I would not want someone coming in and telling me how to change a business that I built from the ground up.
I must say my vote was swayed toward the yes vote because I have heard nothing but comments about rights. The smoker has a "right" to smoke. Well as a non smoker I have the "right" to not inhale someone else's exhaust. I am curious how does the EOB feel about people telling them when they can be open or when they have to close??? Do those rules affect there rights?? How about serving someone under the age of twenty-one?? Does that affect there rights to choose customers? Or perahps the rules that state you can't decide your customers on race, ethencitity, or color. Did that rule take away some rights of other people like EOB?
Perhaps this was a health issue like clean air emporia has been saying.
Also, I have the "right" to decide where my tax dollars are spent. I have no idea how much the state pays in health care for things linked to second hand smoke. I have been in places where people just set and smoke away but don't have the money to pay for there own health care. If people want the right to smoke then they should give up there " right" to free or subsidised health care.
If someone wants to smoke they can do it in the privacey of there own home!!
April 12, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hottopics (anonymous) says...
Maybe it wont be enforced as hard as some might think? Can you imagine the police dept running all over town trying to catch smokers? Don't really see it being a priority with them.
April 13, 2009 at 9:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"If people want the right to smoke then they should give up there " right" to free or subsidised health care."
Same thing for drinkers! Oh and meat eaters! Oh and people who don't exercise! Oh and people who don't floss! Oh and people that take the elevator instead of the stairs! Oh and ........................................
April 13, 2009 at 9:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )