Emporians will have a chance to vote on the smoking ban ordinance before it takes effect now that the city commission has decided to push the start date from March 3 until after the April 7 election.
In a 3-2 vote, commissioners moved the effective start date of the ban from March 3 until April 8, provided the ban doesn’t get voted down in the ballot measure.
The decision to postpone the start date came after Emporians Open for Business, a group opposing the ban, collected enough signatures to put the question on the April 7 ballot and requested the delay to give the public a chance to vote.
Commissioners Kevin Nelson and Jeff Longbine and Mayor Bobbie Agler voted for the postponement; Commissioners Julie Johnson and Jim Kessler voted in favor of going ahead with the ban in March. The 3-2 vote to delay implementation was the same margin as the original approval of the ordinance, except, in approving the ordinance, Agler sided with Johnson and Kessler. Nelson and Longbine voted against the smoking ban ordinance.
Steve Corbin, owner of Town Royal, 405 Commercial St., and a vocal opponent of the city ban, said he was surprised by the city commission’s vote.
“I kind of thought maybe Mayor Agler might lean our way because he was one of the commissioners that said he’d like to see this come to a vote,” Corbin said. “I’m pleasantly surprised, and now we’re going to have to get out there and campaign. ...”
Teresa Walters, a representative of Clean Air Emporia, said she was disappointed by the vote.
“I was hopeful that they would realize that going ahead with the previously determined enactment date would provide those citizens who had expressed an interest in having an ordinance an opportunity to experience it,” Walters said. “... I’ve had many people tell me they were looking forward to March 3 and the opportunity to go out and socialize without being exposed to that.”
In the meantime, a statewide smoking ban bill is making its way to the House after the Senate approved it on Tuesday.
The Senate version of the bill bans smoking in most public places in the state, but exempts private clubs and gambling areas in casinos.
If the statewide ban does go into effect it will preempt any local ordinances.
Rep. Don Hill said it will probably be several weeks before the bill goes up for debate in the House.
“It’s going to be a long path,” Hill said. “(The bill) could change. But what passed the Senate is a pretty clean bill, with only a few exemptions. ... (A)ssuming it goes through as it now stands, to the extent that it’s more or less strict, it would preempt the local ordinance.”
Hill said there is some contention in the House on the statewide bill, even among smoking ban proponents.
“It has a lot to do with folks ... who are in favor of local control,” Hill said.
WILLIAM_A (anonymous) says...
Lookie here
The Senate version of the bill bans smoking in most public places in the state, but exempts private clubs and gambling areas in casinos.
A smoking ban that is trying to meet in the middle. Thats something CAE wasnt smart enough to do..
Hmmm looks like I will have to get a rolodex to keep all my membership cards in.
February 19, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justthinkin (anonymous) says...
WOW - I'm amazed the Commissioned listened & took heed of what the public wants. That's a first. But, let's see if the go with the vote, or over-ride it because, after all, they know what's best for us, and really don't care what the majority wants.
February 19, 2009 at 5:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
Well good thing comission did the right thing, let the public choose what is right and wrong.
February 20, 2009 at 1:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
I was astonished to hear this morning that The Noose will go ahead and become smoke free March 3 anyway. That makes me happy since I would love to go and hang out and enjoy live music etc but can't tolerate the smoke. I'm against the smoking ban as it stands now and don't think bars should be forced to go smoke free. But I suspect Dixon will be pleasantly surprised on how it will have a positive impact on his business. It's a bar geared to adults so should be just fine.
February 20, 2009 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KSCOGirl (anonymous) says...
I believe Ms. Walters has showed her true colors with this statement:
“... I’ve had many people tell me they were looking forward to March 3 and the opportunity to go out and socialize without being exposed to that.”
I thought her whole purpose was to save everyone from the health risks and now we find out it was so they can "socialize". Is it right to take away business rights and the right of people to choose which business they frequent so that a few can "socialize"?
February 20, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
NOW WE KNOW WHO HAS BEEN TESTING FOR THE ANTIS!
(posted by crack earlier)
"Are you telling me that if I rigged a small room with 1000 lit cigarettes (probably what a bartender is exposed to in a week) you could sit in that room and not cough or anything? "
That is exactly how that test was done.
What about your precious seating capacity laws?
Steve
February 20, 2009 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
William_A
The state version said "private clubs that already hold a "private club " license on Jan. 1, 2009." In Emporia that would be VFW, & American Legion and (maybe), the Eagles club only.
Steve Corbin
Emporia, Open For Business
February 20, 2009 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Humans aren't meant to drink fluoride either, but there it is in the drinking water. Maybe if I put in one glass the amount you would drink in a week and gave it to you to drink, you would cough or something.............
Hmmm. Maybe the amount DOES count.
February 20, 2009 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
OR..............
"If an irritant does enter the lung, it will get stuck in the thin layer of mucus (also called sputum or phlegm) that lines the inside of the breathing tubes. An average of 85 grams of mucus are secreted onto the lining of these breathing tubes every day. The mucus is “swept up” toward the mouth by little hairs called cilia that line the breathing tubes."
http://www.european-lung-foundation.o...
If this system isn't working properly, you have an asthma attack.
try again
February 20, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
I thought the issue was the health risks of 2nd hand smoke, crackinsack.
If you are so convinced that exposure to 2nd hand smoke is so deadly, why haven't you tried to back up your claims?
It would be pretty simple for you to request to have the air quality at any smoking establishment tested - I'd be willing to bet that ANY of the business owners who allow smoking would allow you to test the air in their business.
Why haven't you done that?
Nevermind....I think we ALL know why you haven't - you know what the results will be, and they won't support your claims.
" If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth. "
Paul Joseph Goebbles, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany
February 20, 2009 at 5:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Hey O' if you're so sure the air is clean in your smoking establishment, why don't you have it tested? What are you afraid of, that your are WRONG?
February 20, 2009 at 8:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
What I am afraid of is that a few are willing to take advantage of the smokers' addiction to line their pockets with cash. Do you believe that this is not a health issue? If not, why does the American Medical Association, the Center for Disease Control, World Health Organization, American Heart Association, et al says it is? Or are they part of some big consipiracy?
And since we are all so fond of playing the veteran card, since I willingly served my country and put my life on the line anywhere my country said I am needed, then why can't I go into the bar of my choosing and drink a beer without the fear of what some cigarette junkie puts in his or her lungs?
Talk about no common sense? Common sense says you should avoid a substance that can lead to your death -- by heart attack, by cancer, by any of a number of illnesses.
I'll bet that if your mom told you to not play on the highway, you'd claim it was your right, that your mom was a conspirator with the town elite and then you step out on the four-lane.
I'll bet the police really pis* you off when they tell you not to speed because someone could get hurt in the accident. Afterall, you own the car, your taxes pay for the roadway. Who are they to tell you what to do? They wouldn't have to, IF you had common sense.
Good luck to you!!
February 20, 2009 at 9:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Lets put this to rest:
1st sgt. I will pay to have my air tested to epa and osha standards approx. cost $7054.00 and if the air is toxic according to YOUR govt. standards I WILL go non-smoking. If it is not, You pay for the test. I will sign a contract right now with you on this deal, will you? Isn't this the country where you are innocent ,UNTIL you're proven guilty?
STEVE CORBIN
put your money where your mouth is!
February 20, 2009 at 10:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
They may be privately owned, but they cater to the public. And I ain't no lady. Hell, I'm not even female.
February 20, 2009 at 10:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Corbin: I don't need a test to tell me the air in your bar is foul. I'll I have to do is smell it. That's common sense.
Since you state the air in your establishment is clean enough to pass government muster, you pay for the test. Surely your customers are so willing "to protect their rights" that they don't mind coughing up a few bucks to see what's going into their lungs. If it will help, I'll throw a couple of bucks your way.
February 20, 2009 at 10:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
1st whatever; throw a couple of bucks Steve Sauders way they are raising money to fight the rights of Emporia business owners, and they really need it. I still stand behind my statement. Pay & Prove my air is toxic and I'll go non-smoking or shut the ----Up.
Steve
February 20, 2009 at 10:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Why not just have one of your employees file a complaint with OSHA and the EPA? Let them come in a test it.
February 20, 2009 at 10:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Tell you what. I'll shut up if Emporia votes down this ban. I'll even send you a very nice bottle of Scotch that I've been saving. But if it passes, you have to place a sign outside your bar during business hours for at least 10 consecutive days admitting that you were wrong about second hand smoke. I'll even pay for the sign.
Deal?
February 20, 2009 at 11:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
1stsgt_retired- If the information from the American Medical Association, the Center for Disease Control, World Health Organization, American Heart Association, et al , is proof positive that smoking and shs is absolutely , without doubt the sole cause of any of the illnesses or diseases, touted as fact by the American Medical Association, the Center for Disease Control, World Health Organization, American Heart Association, et al. Why then does the SURGEON GENERAL, in his report, THE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF INVOLUNTARY EXPOSURE TO TOBACCO SMOKE, does he, in his final conclusions use such phrases and words such as these" The overall risk of
secondhand smoke exposure, compared with active smoking, is diminished by a substantially lower carcinogenic dose.
Or uses phrases and words such as " evidence is suggestive, but not sufficent,or " The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between
exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer. "
And he makes these types of statements through-out his report and you must remember that he studied all of the information and reports from the American Medical Association, the Center for Disease Control, World Health Organization, American Heart Association, as well as other reports and data from various other testing organizations.
I believe the Surgeon Generals conclusion in his report are proof that smoking and shs is proof that there is no ablolute, definative proof that smoking and shs is the soul cause of any illness or disease and that the tests and reports by the testing agencies are diminished, inconclusive and not sufficient proof, at best.
Facts, not hearsay, conjecture, fear mongering or B.S.
February 20, 2009 at 11:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired- How did you retire, on a section 8 ?
February 20, 2009 at 11:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Meth: If it is not a risk, why doesn't the Surgeon General say so. Is it OK to breath SHS because it has a lower carcinogenic dose? Even a substantially lower dose. Seems to me ANY exposure to carcinogenic SHS is dangerous.
I don't think anyone with common sense believes SHS by itself will kill you, but it does lead to some pretty nasty stuff that will knock you dead. Does the word CANCER come to mind?
It's like standing in the middle of the highway. That won't kill you, but it COULD lead to you getting hit by a car. At the very least, that will hurt -- a lot -- or worse! Bottom line: Don't stand in the middle of the darn highway.
February 20, 2009 at 11:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Looks like somebody is pretty bitter about this smoking ban telling Steve-O how to run his bar there......
February 20, 2009 at 11:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
A REPLY:
"Why not just have one of your employees file a complaint with OSHA and the EPA? Let them come in a test it."
MY ANSWER: I tried that, they told me to "get bent"!
YOUR COMMENT
Tell you what. I'll shut up if Emporia votes down this ban. I'll even send you a very nice bottle of Scotch that I've been saving. But if it passes, you have to place a sign outside your bar during business hours for at least 10 consecutive days admitting that you were wrong about second hand smoke. I'll even pay for the sign.
Deal?
MY ANSWER
NO DEAL , My offer was if osha or the epa said the air was toxic , (NOT FOUL), in my business, I would go non smoking immediately, and in your mind (confess my sins). Oh and I would pay for the test.
If not you pay for the tests.
What is not fair and balanced with this proposal?.
Steve
February 20, 2009 at 11:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired- You need to read the 727 page Surgeon Generals report, before making irrational statements.
If smoking and shs were so leathel why isn't the Surgeon General lobbying congress himself to ban smoking in the whole country ? Simple answer, its called a persons right to " LIBERTY, FREEDOM, CIVIL LIBERTIES and certain PERSONAL RIGHTS. ", which evidently you don't believe in or care about.
February 20, 2009 at 11:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Ok...I like your terms. You gotta deal.
February 20, 2009 at 11:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Methusla: I'd like to here your take on civil liberties, etc., and smoking. Please educate me.
February 20, 2009 at 11:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Excuse my ignorance. I'm just a dumb old Jarhead. I'd like to HEAR...
February 20, 2009 at 11:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Corbin: Tell me how you want this deal to proceed. I'm willing to negotiate.
February 20, 2009 at 11:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
And my offer goes out to Steve Sauder and his wife or Teresa Walters or any Emporia citizen who wants to pay for an independent test of the air quality in my business. If it's toxic, (according to EPA or OSHA standards), I will pay and go non-smoking. If not they pay for the test, and shut up. WHAT COULD BE EASIER?
Steve Corbin
February 20, 2009 at 11:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Hey Buddy: I agreed to your terms. How do you want to proceed?
February 20, 2009 at 11:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Tell you what. You sleep on it. I'll do the same. We'll take this up in the morning.
February 20, 2009 at 11:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Well, let's meet, (You name It), select an independent air quality tech, (agreeable to both of us), put the money in an escrow account ,for the cost of the test, and then let the testers test whenever they want. If the levels are above the PELS established by the EPA,& OSHA, you win & I pay and go non-smoking. If not you pay and never darken my door again.
Steve
February 20, 2009 at 11:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
An independent lab will not support any claim that second hand smoke meets the minimum standards for any cancer. Even in a test of a 20 by 20 foot, completely enclosed room, with a 10 foot ceiling, packed with people and pumped full of smoke, the EPA's test showed that carcinogens' lowest levels were not only not exceeded, but were negligable. Not one test came close to meeting dangerous levels.
Be careful in making this bet with Steve. You will loose this one.
Better stick to the "I don't like smelling like smoke" agenda.
February 20, 2009 at 11:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired- You asked and here is my and everyones take on "CIVIL LIBERTIES ".
Civil liberties are freedoms that protect the individual from the government. Civil liberties set limits for government so that it cannot abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens.
The CAE, its leadership, members and followers are trying to get the local government, ie. City Commission and Commissioners to pass a smoking ban ordinance that definately, and absolutely gives the government the ability to " abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens."
Pretty simple and straight forward when you understand the concept of " CIVIL LIBERTIES ", isn't it.
Any thing else you would like to know ?
February 20, 2009 at 11:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired- You see you are on the side of and are aligned with a group that care nothing for the FREEDOM, LIBERTY, CIVIL LIBERTIES and certain PERSONAL RIGHTS of anyone but their own and trying to force everone to live by their rules and way of life and living by using the local government to do what they can't on their own. Hence abuse of governmental power and the use of governmental interference with the lives of its people. Which violates a persons " CIVIL LIBERTIES ".
February 21, 2009 at 12:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
"Better check out your sources next time before you reference them! I suppose this site isn’t meaningful now, right?"
While it's true that I didn't have the time to fully read the entire web-site that I cited, I was simply giving you, crack, some common knowledge to anyone who has ever cracked a biology book. It didn't matter the source because it has been irrefutably proven that the lungs are as resilient as any of the other organs our bodies were DESIGNED with. As for the meaninglessness of the site, to me it always was because I know what the lungs can and cannot do but I didn't want you to just take it from me. Did the site give any studies to back up their claims about ETS?? NO! It just made statements about it and left it to the reader to decide it was on the internet, therefore it must be true. If you need me to take a little time tomorrow and come up with a few other sources to verify the design of lungs and the similarity in design of the stomach, then I most certainly will.
A side question: if you believe we have evolved, why are you worried about avoiding ETS? If evolution is true, then wouldn't the fittest of us survive the exposure? Wouldn't that mean the "fatalities" were the weak ones of the species that the earth doesn't need to survive? Just wondering.
February 21, 2009 at 12:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
AN INTERESTING QUOTE FROM A RETIRED GENERAL:
"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master."
- Dwight Eisenhower
Steve
February 21, 2009 at 7:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crackinsack- You state so-called facts from some european lung association, who may or may not be a reputable, legitimate agency. Here is your statement, "“ETS is a proven risk factor for lung cancer, asthma attacks in those already affected and worsening symptoms of bronchitis in adults.
Well here is a conclusive statement from someone I think we will all agree is reputable, the SURGEON GENERAL of the U.S., he states in his published report the following conclusion,
4. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between secondhand
smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms
including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and
difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.
5. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between secondhand
smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms
including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and
difficulty breathing among healthy persons.
6. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between secondhand
smoke exposure and chronic respiratory
symptoms.
Known reputable and trusted " FACTS " crackinsack & 1sgt_retired, " FACTS ", not hearsay or conjecture, " FACTS ".
February 21, 2009 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Want more or hungry for more. I have more I can give you if you wish.
February 21, 2009 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Thank you, crack, for pointing out how my cited web source propagandizes. It is typical for lies to start with one solid truth to establish validity and then build lies on top of that, after cause for the audience to question statements has been removed. After giving the well-known (though apparently not to you) facts about the protection of mucus and coughing to the lungs, it said, "While coughing is a common event, is not a normal event and is the result of irritation to the bronchial tubes. A cough can expel mucus from the lungs faster than cilia."
That is a partial truth. The cough is a result of lung irritation, it can expel mucus faster than cilia, and it is a common event. When it says that it isn't healthy, however, that is a lie. A lung that cannot cough is unhealthy.
"Although a cough can sound awful, it's not usually a sign of a serious condition. In fact, coughing is a healthy and important reflex that helps protect the airways in the throat and chest."
http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/...
The fact is, that most web sources have anti-SHS sections because of the large quantity of data thrown at them along with large advertising checks from pharmaceutical companies who stand to benefit from anti-shs campaigns. However, the suggested action to be taken is avoidance--not overpowering and subduing all smokers.
You have mentioned in previous posts something to the effect that either when you are in or the morning after being in a smoky environment you cough up a lot of stuff. Sounds to me that you have healthy lung function and that your lungs have expelled the irritants--just like after attending a bonfire, or being exposed to an allergen, or even too low of humidity. I also seem to recall a claim that you have been harmed by SHS. I have been curious to know what treatments you received/are receiving and if SHS is the only adverse influence on your lungs. Of course, your medical records are private, so I will simply ask you why you persist on going into smoky environments if you don't feel well afterward? I know you keep talking about not letting smokers control you, but isn't becoming stubborn and rebellious toward any entity, letting it cause negative thoughts & emotions within you or even harmful behavior, also allowing it to control you?
February 21, 2009 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
"They may be privately owned, but they cater to the public."
They are privately owned and they cater to CERTAIN segments of the public but are open to all who wish to join in--just like any business. A women's clothing store is open to all the public, but not all may choose to participate in that environment for a variety of reasons.
February 21, 2009 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Just got through with some Homemade beef and noodles at the S&S cafe. Ummmm Good. And I waited till I got outside to smoke. Now it's nap time.
Steve
February 21, 2009 at 12:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Methusla: You caught me. I have not read the Surgeon General's report.
I did read the Fact Sheet from the report (www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/second...
Here is a portion of the text:
Smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death. In this report, The...Surgeon General has concluded that:
*Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States are not covered by smoke-free workplace policies.
*Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide. Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.
*Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers. Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent.
Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent.
*The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.
*Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke...
February 21, 2009 at 10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Do you still think I should read the report?
February 21, 2009 at 10:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Do you want more?
I do agree with you on one point; the Surgeon General is a reputable source of information -- no doubt!!
February 21, 2009 at 10:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Actually, the Surgeon General's office, may not be as reputable as you would like to believe. They also receive funding from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grants. As do the American Heart Assoc., the American Cancer Assoc.,
your local paper, in ad dollars, your local Health Department, in grants, the State of Kansas, the Kansas Health Policy Authority, Senators, for trips, etc.
Please look up Robert Wood Johnson Foundation site, for extensive look at this marketing program for Johnson and Johnson. distributors of Nicoderm, Nicorette, and Chantix. J&J's foundation is the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. They hold tens of millions shares of J&J stock.
I spoke with the Kansas Ethics Committee person on Thursday. She told me that as long as these grants and donations were given through a foundation, that made it legal. J&J could not give it directly. I told her this might be legal, but I don't see it as ethical IN ANY WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
February 21, 2009 at 11:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wyse_guy (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired, crack and CAE .... Have the air tested in these places that smoking is allowed. PROVE the air is bad for a persons health! Innocent until proven guilty??? Are you afraid the test wouldn't prove your point?
CAE PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.
Schedule the test and post the results. Everyone can post websites and info day after day but thats not testing the air ... wouldn't a simple TEST prove if the air is a health hazard or not??? It should be tested before a vote.
What are you waiting for CAE???
Get the ball rolling lets see some TEST RESULTS to back up your nonsense ban.
February 21, 2009 at 11:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wyse_guy (anonymous) says...
lmao I heard on the radio they are wanting people to vote yes for the ban to cut back on teen-smoking .... what a crock ... 1st a health issue ... then teens smoking ....
and of course ....
I believe Ms. Walters has showed her true colors with this statement:
“... I’ve had many people tell me they were looking forward to March 3 and the opportunity to go out and socialize without being exposed to that.”
What a joke!!!!
February 21, 2009 at 11:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wyse_guy (anonymous) says...
CAE should be the ones paying for the tests. They are the ones who started the mess.
February 21, 2009 at 11:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Wow, I should have been down to the Royal last night!
Thanks to Pingeon and methusla for the $ donations ,(and the materials). Unlike the "Committee for a Healthier Emporia", (CHE), we are not actively soliciting donations from people, only Emporia businesses who would be affected by this ban. It has been very rewarding to have so many individuals, (mostly non-smoking), donate to the cause and EOB thanks you.
CHE's fundraising letter infers we could be recieving funds from big tobacco, and this is completely false.
It also states that all contributions to their fund will remain confidential "since we have no filling requirements or reports."
What are you trying to hide ?
EOB is keeping track of all donations & expenditures and will file it the county clerks office as per their request. All donations over $50.00 per individual or over $100.00 for a married couple will be reported. This is usually required for a political campaign and we don't see the difference here.
Advertising begins next week, and the yard signs are in.
Remember your PEOPLE SPEAK LETTERS to the Gazette.
Steve Corbin
February 22, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
A 1986 surgeon general's report concluded involuntary smoking caused lung cancer, but it offered only weak epidemiological evidence to support the claim. In 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with further evaluating the evidence for health effects of SHS.
In 1992 EPA published its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," claiming SHS is a serious public health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a Group A carcinogen (like benzene, asbestos, and radon).
The EPA's 1993 report has not only been the basis for most of the contentions about secondhand smoke, but also the basis for most of the legislation that's crept across the land.
However, the EPA report was investigated by Congress. In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.
Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data. ... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. ... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."
Osteen called the EPA report that had reached this conclusion an outright "fraud" and overturned (invalidated, vacated) that conclusion.
::snip::
February 22, 2009 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
A study was conducted by the International Agency on Research on Cancer (part of the World Health Organization). The research ran for 10 years and covered 7 European countries. The study concluded there was no statistically significant risk for non-smokers who either lived with or worked with smokers.
::snip::
A 2003 study by the American Cancer Society shows the same results as the WHO study:
Focusing on 35,561 never-smoking Californians married to smokers, who were followed by the Cancer Society for 39 years (1959 to 1998), the results showed no lung cancer risk whatsoever.
::snip::
OSHA has stated outright that "field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
::snip::
In 1981 and again in 1988, the American Cancer Society did two major US studies (CPS-1 and CPS-2) and "major" means major: the first studied 1 million people, the second. 1.2. In addition to looking into the correlations of secondhand smoke and lung cancer, it also looked for links to heart disease. And found no connection. In either study.
::snip::
I know the above may not convince any of Theresa's Country Club Crusaders, but it should, at the very least, show that there is considerable controversy regarding the effects of exposure to 2nd hand smoke.
How to clear up the controversy?
1. Test the air quality in ANY smoking establishment in Emporia to see if it violates OSHA standards
2. Provide medical evidence (doctor's testimony) that there are ANY people in Emporia who are being treated for medical problems that are a direct result of exposure to 2nd hand smoke.
February 22, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
MisterO,
No testing will ever take place at a business in Emporia, Kansas because the smoking ban people know the numbers won't jive with what they are saying.
" If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth. "
Paul Joseph Goebbles, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany
Steve Corbin
February 22, 2009 at 11:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Mr. Wiseguy: My friend Mr. Corbin and I are working out a deal. Corbin says the test is expensive. Can I put you in for a third of the cost?
February 22, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
MisterO: One of your own has endorsed the Surgeon General. Are you saying Methusla was wrong?
February 22, 2009 at 1:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Steve - sorry I missed you too. Enjoyed talking to your wife for a little bit. Of course, the beer was cold!
Hopefully will see you St. Paddy's Day. Not positive I will be in town yet, but planning on it as of now.
Later,
Pingeon
February 22, 2009 at 1:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Do you get the feeling this is turning into The War of the Studies?
February 22, 2009 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
MisterO,
The above from 1sgt_retired is him talking, not me. I thought the two of us may have had a wager going on with only the loser bearing the costs of said wager. I e-mailed the closest air quality testing company This Sat. asking for costs and the procedures in the testing . They are based in Kansas City and have great refrences. I should be getting a reply this week from the company.
Steve
February 22, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
And now that I have settled down a bit, I want to apologize for saying, to anyone, "shut the - up. "
Not very professional.
Steve
February 22, 2009 at 2:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Mr. Corbin, sorry for the delayed response. I am dealing with an unexpected family emergency -- not an excuse, just a distraction.
Can you tell me what the OSHA/EPA standards are?
February 22, 2009 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired posted, "One of your own has endorsed the Surgeon General. Are you saying Methusla was wrong?"
I'm saying the surgeon general based his statement on the dangers of 2nd hand smoke on flawed research. I believe "fraud" is the term used by the Federal judge in the case.
February 22, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired posted, "Mr. Wiseguy:..."
Thanks! I think questioning flawed/fraudulent research is a wise thing to do, too. Glad you agree.
February 22, 2009 at 3:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Mr. O. What case are your referring to? I'd like to look it up.
February 22, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired:
(As per air quality researchers nationwide) Nicotine is the only unique or "trace" chemical in secondhand smoke. If you measured for formaldehyde, the carpet and other interior sources of formaldehyde would corrupt the test result, formaldehyde is formed naturally in our atmosphere due to photochemical oxidation. Benzene is given off from burning foods in the kitchen or diesel exhaust outdoors so again a false reading would be obtained. Therefore, nicotine is the ideal chemical to measure to determine secondhand smoke concentrations in the air.
Cotine pel's posted by osha is
0.5 mg per cubic meter.
I believe that is the current pel but will check into it further
Steve
February 22, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
The Surgeon General can only base his conclusions on the research results he recieves from all of the agencies who have tested cigarette smoke and SHS and its affects on humans.
Therefore if the conclusions arrived at by the Surgeon General or anyone is flawed, fraudelant or wrong, the blame for the Surgeion Generals conclusions must lie with the agencys who did the testing and submitted the flawed, fraudulent and wrong research results to the Surgeon General.
Its just that simple.
Therefore if the research results from all of the so-called research and health agencies is and was flawed, fraudulent and wrong then all of the test data, reports, opinions, etc. must be considered as flawed, fraudulent and wrong and abslolutely thrown out and ignored and if that is done, where does that leave the CAE and all of the Clean Air Coalition with their claims of banning smokin and SHS for the sake of " Health" !
The Surgeon General already admits, in his 2006 report, that some or most of the research findings may not be correct in two sections of his report titled " Methodologic Issues " and " Confounding " .
" Confounding, which refers in this context to the mixing of the effect of another factor with that of secondhand smoke, has been proposed as an explanation for associations of secondhand smoke with adverse health consequences. "
February 22, 2009 at 6:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I will have to disagree with methusla on this one, IN PART !
The Surgeon General of the United States, is charged with protecting the health of the citizens, and overseeing all the Doctors of the armed forces.
THIS JOB HOWEVER, IS APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE.
For our last Surgeon General to make the statement, "(that there is no safe level of second-hand smoke) " I'm paraphrasing, while ignoring scientific studies on toxicity/dose levels is criminal.
However if you read my second sentance you will understand it all.
Do you really want to turn over all your decisions to these guys in Washington? Have you ever heard of a politician lying to you.
Steve Corbin
February 22, 2009 at 6:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
moving to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
February 22, 2009 at 6:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
My above post was to 1sgt_retired
Steve
February 22, 2009 at 6:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I hope the word " Confounding ", hasn't " confounded " anyone, but if you read the Surgeon Generals report, with an open mind and understand what could and possibly go wrong with this type of research and testing you will and can see how the Surgeon General cannot and will not make any absolute, definitive conclusive statements as to whether smoking and SHS is or can be the soul cause of any serious health problems, no one would be that foolish, except maybe the CAE and all other anti or ban smoking advocates, especially with all of the other exposure factors, genetic possibilities, and a persons pre-disposition to pre-existing health factors and human error in the texting or research process.
February 22, 2009 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )