Market decision
Michelle Winter, Emporia
Thursday, February 26, 2009
WE HAVE a rich heritage in the United States of America of a free-market system, allowing opportunities for ordinary people to start up businesses and see if they can make them work. We bestow on these entrepreneurs the right to withhold services from anyone as they see fit. We also allow them to cater to the portion of the population that they feel they can best serve.
The Emporia City Commission has passed a ban that unreasonably removes part of that freedom. It is unreasonable because the scientific data behind this ban is weak, at best. This commission has decided that no bar, restaurant or private club owner can in any way provide services to a patron who is simultaneously smoking a cigarette.
I did a quick estimation of the number of restaurants within the city limits that allow smoking. I came up with 8 out of 40 (I didn’t include a few that I don’t know). That would be about 20 percent. The most recent studies indicate that roughly 20 percent of the U.S. population are cigarette smokers. The free market system seems to be doing a better job of representing our society than most of our politicians are. Let’s allow business to change as we change and not let the politicians break the free market system too.
Please vote “No” to the smoking ban question on the April ballot, and if you find smoking to be inconvenient, please call the owner/manager of your favorite bars and restaurants and request that they go smoke free — it is their right.
Michelle Winter
Emporia
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
It's good to know that some in Emporia get it.
Thanks Michelle
Steve Corbin Emporia Open for Business
February 26, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dale011 (anonymous) says...
Too bad folks that live outside the city limits won't be able to vote on this. I guess we'll all just have to vote with our feet and out money.
February 26, 2009 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
dale011,
Don't know if your for or against, but like I said before, You will get your chance to vote on this. Your county commissioner (Walters) will propose it before the end of this year.
Steve
February 26, 2009 at 5:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
So I am poking around on the Web, and I come across Legalzoom.com. I have no idea of the legitimacy of this site, but they do post an interesting article on, "The Right to Refuse Service: Can a business refuse service to Someone because of appearance, odor or attitude?" http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articl...
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how this translates to the smoking ban, but the last paragraph is interesting as it pertains to business owners' rights, not to mention the use of the term "public accomodations":
"Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations far outweighs the individual liberties involved."
February 26, 2009 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
From irish's cited web-page: "Business establishments can lawfully provide discounts to groups such as senior citizens, children, local residents or members of the clergy, in order to attract their business."
Attracting certain groups of patrons to ones business is Constitutional, apparently (I always suspected it was).
20% to 20%...................it isn't often that foresight is 20/20 : )
February 26, 2009 at 6:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dale011 (anonymous) says...
Steve, I'm on the record for the freedom to choose, not government intervention. I signed the petition after posting my opinion here several times. When I signed the petition I learned I would not get to vote on the issue because I live in the county.
February 26, 2009 at 9:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I'm still waiting for someone to PROVE that the levels of smoke in any bar or restaurant in Emporia Kansas is above the PEL limits established by the EPA. The danger is in the dose, don't ya know?
Steve
February 27, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Perhaps Crackinhead should actually READ the data from the EPS study rather than just spewing the Health Department propaganda. Your repeating false science will not make it so. Perhaps your verbosity in this is more of a narcissistic thing. Attempting to control other people's choices, in using a legal product, is actually kind of creepy, I think. Please go and offer to buy whichever place of business that is offending you so. Make it non smoking. That is the AMERICAN way. What you are doing is chicken poop.
February 27, 2009 at 12:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
"If only they were more considerate, we wouldn’t need a new, more specific, law to change their habits."
And there you have it, the true motive behind the ban, not the health lie they hide behind.
February 27, 2009 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
When I was a child, smoking was allowed pretty much EVERYWHERE!!!! Now, it is allowed in only about 20% of restaurants, no publicly owned buildings and most but still not 100% of bars. So when crack says, "It’s the “it’s always been this way” attitude that is crippling the free market’s ability to phase-out smoking indoors." I think that just may be false. The market is obviously phasing out and not taking a horribly long time to do so. The biggest changes have happened within the past 15-20 years, so at this rate of change, in only about five more years we won't be seeing very many restaurants that allow smoking. Of course, the equation changes with bars because you have to figure out the percentages of smoking bar-goers instead of the whole population, but I'd be willing to bet that those percentages also match smoking allowed bar percentages. However, as the population continues to decrease in overall smoking, that will speed up the switch-over for the bars. If you want an immediate change, yes you must pass a law, but immediate change is often more harmful than letting something phase itself out. Interesting that the proclaimed evolutionist here is the one that wants to immediately change an environment rather than allowing it to "evolve."
And, once again, if shs was as harmful as we are expected to believe, no one from that era of smoking allowed everywhere would be living medically unassisted or even be alive now.
February 27, 2009 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
oh boy the weekend is here.
No more wisecracks for two whole days!
Steve
February 27, 2009 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
"If the proposed bans do get more intrusive, level-headed voters like me won’t vote for them and they won’t pass."--crackinsack
You are assuming that there would be a vote. This is the principal behind petitioning to put this one to a vote--because three commissioners decided that it was theirs to decide. Do you think that they will allow us to vote on any further bans? if you think so, you may want to look up the Salina ordeal. The passing of laws without the will of the people is the "slippery slope" to which others on here have made references. The more intrusive the ban, the less say the voters will have. That is why this battle has been very important in fighting. The second part of it is educating citizens in how not to force their fellow citizens to abide by what is convenient for them, just for that sake. We have to ability to communicate our preferences through the free market system and if we use that, then we will be leaving those businessmen and women to figure it out or fail and have to do something else. We don't need another law on the books--we just need to be assertive.
February 27, 2009 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
"Way to insult me by changing my username! You sure showed me! Calling me names really helps build your character. I really don't care about EPA studies on PEL limits..."
Practice what you preach crack. Although you didn't change my screen name, you went after my character with the pathethic US Mint comment rather than addressing my point.
You and the other anti-smokers are trying to shape society to meet your standards, not because of health issues. If you truly cared about your health, you would understand the EPA studies, and the PEL levels, you wouldn't be consuming alcohol nor most restaurant food either. You talk of health issues and common sense. Common sense should tell you how to avoid SHS. Eventually, all of you anti's slip and show your true dislike for smoking and smokers, even your leader whom did so when it was announced the ban date was postponed pending the result of the vote. Just admit the truth, you don't like the smell. You don't appreciate those smokers that litter, that are inconsiderate and blow smoke near you, or stand right in the doorways of non-smoking facilities that throw their butts down on the walk. You're forgetting about those of us that do not do those things and but will also be affected by the proposed ban. You claim that your group's efforts are "for the kids" or "for the employees" who are working in smoking environs. What about work places where non-smokers are protected from SHS?. Common sense says kids arent supposed to be in bars, parents could and should choose NS restaurants, should tell you that no-one forces anyone to work in smoking environs.
There was a $1 increase in tobacco taxes started last weekend, in coming months another $1/pack will be enacted. Those pushing for the ban of tobacco better start preparing and saving because when they succeed in removing all these sleezy smokers by forcing them to quit with unfair taxation and public elimination. When no one smokes, they will have to tax someone else to replace that revenue.
I can only hope they start taxing Country Club memberships, Luxury cars, condominiums, golf carts, City owned 4X4s, maid services, and all those other unnecessary purchases made by those who chose to do so. <<I am lowering myself to your mentality and being facetious.
February 27, 2009 at 5:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gold66801 (anonymous) says...
You people that think this smoking ban won,t pass just listen to Steve Corbin and his bunch of idiots. This thing ban will pass with flying colors.
February 27, 2009 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
Lie:
"At a bar, you are getting exposed to SHS against your will."
Fact:
You made the informed decision to enter an establishment that you know allows smoking, therefore it is not against your will.
" If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth. "
Paul Joseph Goebbles, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany
Stop the lies. Vote against the ban.
February 27, 2009 at 5:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
crackingsack posted, "I really don't care about EPA studies on PEL limits"
Translation, "I really don't care about the truth"
Stop the lies, vote against the ban.
February 27, 2009 at 5:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
crack stated earlier:
"I really don't care about EPA studies on PEL limits... I KNOW that it is unhealthy for me to breathe SHS. How? The same way you know touching a hot stove is unhealthy for you. A little common sense, folks, that's all it takes. No matter what studies are taken and not matter what the results are, there is always going to be someone disputing them. The failure to prove something doesn't necessarily make it false unless you prove the opposite. Could you direct me to some studies that prove the air in the local joints is 100% healthy? No? Well, I didn't think so. How about we trust our own bodies' reaction to it and go with that."
God what a gold mine.
1. Crack spews forth the supposed studies from Clean Air Emporia, but in this statement says they don't care what studies say.
2. They do have the commen sense not to burn themselves on a hot stove.
3."The failure to prove something doesn't necessarily make it false unless you prove the opposite." NO IT DOESN'T, BUT WHY PASS A LAW THEN? NOW IT IS ON US TO PROVE YOU WRONG?
4."Could you direct me to some studies that prove the air in the local joints is 100% healthy? " NOT YET! I am still awaiting the testing on my air quality, AND I WILL GUARANTEE YOU NOW, that it will NOT BE 100% HEALTHY. But it probably won't be much worse than the air in your own little home. Because the air in your home is not 100% healthy either.
5. "How about we trust our own bodies' reaction to it and go with that."
O.k. Emporia, let's all change our lifestyles and make a law restricting some peoples rights, because second hand smoke affects crackinsack body.
If you have the commen sense to not burn your hand on a stove, surely you can keep your body away from the nasty ole joints that allow smoking. You made the choice to stop coming into mine afterall so we know you can make the proper choice.
Steve
February 27, 2009 at 6:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
"Some SHS fans petitioned and got the right to bring it to a vote. (a waste of time, but it's their right)....."
I helped petition but I have never even tried smoking because I didn't like the second-hand stuff. Quit labeling. I even signed this letter to the editor "Michelle Winter---a non-business owner and non-smoker who dislikes smoke." The Gazette didn't print that part.
gold66801:
See above and in addition, most of us have met as a result of our opposition to this and opposition far outweighs support on these forums and in my petitioning. Steve provided the opportunity to organize in our opposition, but we are each "independent agents."
February 27, 2009 at 6:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
hey gold66801
tell us what you really think.
steve
February 27, 2009 at 6:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
a earlier poster mentioned those "ugly yellow signs" in peoples yards. Come on, it's almost springtime and those signs remind me of the 1st daffodills sprouting up:)
Seriously, about 50% of them are located in non-smokers lawns, who know government interference when they see it.
If we are going to overturn this ban it will take the votes of non-smokers to do it. Thank goodness from the comments I have heard, it could happen.
Steve
February 28, 2009 at 7:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )