ralpheatsbeef (anonymous) says...

We need this ban. Whenever I go out on the town to get drunk and eat buckets of fried stuff, I notice my stretchy-waist pants smell all yucky from smoke. That just can't be healthy.

January 7, 2009 at 2:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Steve,

Congrats on getting the signatures. Hopefully this needless ban will be overturned.

January 7, 2009 at 2:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Blackshirt (anonymous) says...

Wow! Crack, you are so far off base in your arguments that you are now apparently planning some sort of vengeance on a random smoker. Get a counselor.

January 7, 2009 at 5:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ralpheatsbeef (anonymous) says...

Well, of course, I was being sarcastic. I don't smoke, and it's not my favorite thing to be around, but to ban smoking in a bar for health reasons is absurd, just a bit. I know, I know ... should others have to choose to endure it or to not frequent the businesses that allow smoking? Actually, yes. It's America. If a place allows smoking and you don't like it, tell them so and leave. If they value your business, maybe they'll change their policy; maybe they won't. Either way, it's free people making their own decisions without the need for a Big Momma government doing so. I think within a few years you would be hard pressed to find a place that will allow smoking indoors, with or without a law, and the places that do so will take the good and the bad that may come with it.
Now then, don't get me started on fecal hygiene ... Uncle Sam, come wipe my bot!

January 7, 2009 at 6:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Crack,

Why are you so upset that this is coming to a vote where the general public can vote on it? Why are you so against this being on a general ballot?

January 7, 2009 at 6:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

come on crack!

If it comes to a vote and stands I'll give you a thumbs up. If it is voted down will you shut the he-- up? I know you need the protection, but if joe six-pack tells you tough, will you tough it out? Can you use the commen sense god gave to a grasshopper and deal with it?
Steve

January 7, 2009 at 8:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sociallyconsious (anonymous) says...

In response to all of the postings that I as a non-smoker can go anywhere and if there is smoking I can leave is true. I have exercised this right all my life. To the restaurant and bar owners please understand this prospective. As a non smoker my only option is to leave your establishment. By opposing a smoking ban you have determined that you want to cater to a declining clientel, as smoking nationwide is declining.

A smoker can refrain from smoking while they eat they meal; however a non smoker can not hold their breath for that long. Although I can leave your establishment, the child that comes with their parent can not leave.

By your smoking you are putting everyone there at harm. Please do not tell me there is no proof that smoking and second hand smoke is harmful. There is much research which proves it is bad for you overall as well as the fact that secondhand smoke has a link to heart attacks.

Shouldn't it be our goal in life to do everything we can to get through our lives without doing harm to ourselves and others.

January 7, 2009 at 9:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

"A smoker can refrain from smoking while they eat they meal; however a non smoker can not hold their breath for that long."
Sociallyconcious your right. a non smoker cannot hold their breath for five minutes, a proven fact. Yes secondhand smoke can be dangerous. My question: Why are you sitting in the smoking section if it bothers you so much? Sure a smoker can wait for an hour at a restaraunt to smoke but if he or she is in the smoking section why bother? Look at the layout of most restaraunts nowdays and you'll see that around 11% of the seating area is smoking, that leaves you 89% of an area to eat without interferance from smokers. Now in a bar its different as there are no smoking and non smoking sections. Bar owners are not opposing the ban purely to satisfy smokers. Its to exercise their right to service the People that frequent the bar, not just smokers or non smokers.

January 7, 2009 at 10:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sociallyconsious (anonymous) says...

Romano1784 you are right I can and do sit in the non smoking area. However, due to the size of most restaurants in Emporia it really does not make a difference. I still am forced to endure secondhand smoke. What about the restaurants with no non-smoking areas like Bruffs. I ate there about a year ago and asked the waitress for a table away from the smoking. She said no problem and then proceed to sit smokers at the table right next to us. We had already ordered so it was too late to leave.

What about people who want to frequent a bar and dance but do not want the secondhand smoke, are we out of luck?

January 7, 2009 at 10:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

What about Montana Mikes, or Golden Corral? Or the other dozen restaraunts where smoking is not permitted indoors? You go to a bar to dance, I go to a bar to have a good time. I know several nonsmokers at bars who go to dance drink and have a good time without worry of secondhand smoke. You expect smokers to go out of their way to save your sensibilities because we offend you. I refuse to stand in the cold just to satisfy you. Yes secondhand smoke can be harmful but the amout you would have to be exposed to does not exist in any bar in Emporia. If you dont like the smell, sorry. If the smoke bothers you, again sorry. But the flu, pneumonia, colds bother me and they are much more frequent than secondhand smoke.

January 7, 2009 at 10:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lisa (anonymous) says...

First of all for those of you who believe eating fried foods is not affecting you...well you are wrong! Look at the cost of insurance!! The highest rate of death and health care in the United States is due to people being OVERWEIGHT! So If your going to control where someone can smoke..then lets go into the homes of all the obese and demand they eat right...oh well lets also mandate that restaurants only serve healthy foods!!!!! If a place allows smoking and you dont like it ...dont go there or bring your children. I dont like paying over priced premiums on my insurance for you to be obese either!

January 7, 2009 at 10:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack- As you implied on another forum.
"Why do you think all smokers so violent? Is it the tobacco that makes them violent? Maybe it has something to do with the background of smokers that makes them violent. Or maybe it's just that people who make poor decisions and lack common sense will often smoke as well as start fights. Before you grill me, remember that you implied smokers are violent, not me".
It seems that in this statement you are implying that all smokers make bad decisions and lack common sense and are of dubious backgrounds, etc., how disrespectful can you possibly get !
And as you stated on this forum in your recent post,
"I think the next time a smoker lights-up next to me, I'll get a bucket of cooking grease so I can pour it down his throat and all over his hair and clothes. That way we'll be even. We'll both be exposed to something unhealthy that we didn't bring on ourselves. Plus, the smoker will smell like grease and be forced to take a shower before going to bed. …Unless, of course, he wants the pillow to smell bad".
Also your implication in this statement seems to be that smokers do not bathe, etc. Yet another degrading attack upon people who smoke.
Now I don't know about anyone else, but pouring cooking grease down someones throat, etc, seems to me to be a sadistic and violent act, even worse than smoking.
So, now I believe that your real self is beginning to come forth and it seems pretty violent to me.
And it seems to me that if the smoking ban ordinance is repealed in a public vote, neither you nor the CAE and its advocates will accept and respect the vote as the will of the people.
On the other hand those of us who oppose the smoking ban will accept and respect a vote of the people to keep the smoking ban ordinance in place as the will of the people, even though we may not like it.
Oh, and if the smoking ban is repealed in a public vote, those businesses that have cooking grease and allow smoking will probably need to put a guard on their cooking grease to protect those customers who just happen to smoke.

January 7, 2009 at 10:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

Socially I'm not picking on you out of spite. You posted your opinion and I am trying to post mine.
Crack... The words escape me. To reply to any posting of yours just leaves me huffing and puffing, not a "crack" against smokers. lol

January 7, 2009 at 10:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ratdog (anonymous) says...

I've changed my mind about the smoking ban. I've heard from reliable sources that several completely capable adults walked into bars and restaurants in the last few weeks and couldn't figure out how to turn the f#$# around and walk back out the door when they caught a whiff of smoke or something that might have smelled something like smoke.

I was against the ban, but now that I know that there are actually intelligent adults in this community that can't make a simple decision for themselves without encroaching on other citizens' rights, I think I have no choice but to support the ban.

Before, I thought that reasonable, responsible adults could make their own determination about what is right for themselves and their families. Now, I know that's not the case.

January 8, 2009 at 5:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

sociallyconsious;
You are correct in stating that I am catering to a declining clientel. They are however, my clientel and I know their wishes and wants. Does everyone realize that if I thought my business would benefit from going non-smoking I would already be there. I am putting the health issue aside as all those studies quoted don't pertain to my property. NOT ONE STUDY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED AT MY BAR. Don't you think if I had deadly toxins in the air the health department or OSHA or EPA would shut me down?
Until that happens I view this strictly as a rights issue. My right to engage in a lawfull business selling a legal product.
Your right not to come in . Everyone has the right, right?
Steve Corbin

January 8, 2009 at 7:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

ratdog,
I am assuming from your post that the person or persons or adults that walked into a restaurant and either weren't intelligent enough or capable of making the decision to leave because of the smoking and smoke were non-smokers and smoking ban supporters.
I would like to know why this incident would change your mind from being against the smoking ban to supporting the smoking ban ! After-all why would you cave in to the demands of selfish, selfcentered, rights and freedoms destroying small minded people who seem to think that they do not have to make any difficult choices in life and want to dominate the lives of the citizens and business owners of Emporia. If you allow this to happen, what will be the next freedom of choice that will be taken away from you, me and others in Emporia.

January 8, 2009 at 8:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

methusla;
I think ratdog was joking, at least I hope they were.

And once again crack shows she just doesn't get it!

I am not fighting for the right to smoke, I'm fighting for my rights period.
Steve

January 8, 2009 at 8:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

crack
What ban would you love to see next? What then after that one? Make a list as long as you'd like.

January 8, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

crack,
Staying open later than 2:00 A.M. don't want to,
9p.m. is my bedtime usually

Serving minors; probably do already,(not knowingly) Although I do believe 18 year olds should be able to buy, that would be their fight.

Maximum occupancy: Like that idea, with too many people in a business no-one would get service.

Selling/smoking marijuana: Outgrew that;)

When you and your CAE friends come in and do scientific studies of my bars air quality then you can throw out the health issue, until then >>>>>>>>>>>>
Also, I have the right to pick and choose my battles so far, thank you.
Steve

January 8, 2009 at 10:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

crack
I have stated before I don't smoke.
I am glad to hear that for you this is the last thing that is ban worthy.
So I can assume that when the next ban comes up you will be standing with us fighting against it?
There are 305,576,500 people in this country and they( those who are old enough to Know any different) all probably have things that they feel are ban worthy. There in lies the problem. We can't just ban everything because you can find a few people that feel it's ban worthy.
This is apparently going to a vote and if the majority of those that vote vote to keep the ban so be it. That will show that either the majority of the people want it or that it wasn't really important enough for those that oppose it to get out and vote.
We have a rare opportunity to try to stop this unnecessary(imho) ban. Most bans come at a higher level that we can't oppose so easily. We will see this when the state wide ban is put into effect.

January 8, 2009 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Raff (anonymous) says...

Hmmm,

Why don't you fight to stay open later than 2AM? Pretty sure alcohol availability has come up as a public vote.

Why don't you fight to serve minors? Pretty sure age restrictions on alcohol comsumption was brought up as a public vote as well.

Why don’t you fight to be able to sell/smoke marijuana? Marijuana is an illegal substance where cigarettes are not....pretty poor analogy

January 8, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

crackinsack;
Once again you are right on the money. It is uncanny how you always win an argument with your facts and research.
WHAT I WANT is for you to stay at the Country Club and leave me and my customers alone. Don't have a membership, I'll gladly buy you one if you would just leave us alone, but then I would have to know your name for the membership application.

And where was teresa walters and her minions at when she was selling fat, I mean fast food at Wendy's years ago? If she was really concerned about all of our health and not HER own needs and wants why didn't she rail about the obiesity problems back then. Why has it always been about bars and/or smoking? Like I said (but you must have missed it) until CAE, EPA,OSHA come into MY bar and run scientific tests on MY air quality then>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Steve

January 8, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack- No one pours anything down your lungs as long as you still have the freedom of choice to either be in a place, whether it be a restaurant, bar or whatever or not to be there if you know that the place allows smoking and there are most probably going to be smokers there. Come on crackinsack, smokers were required not to smoke in any public building or privately owned business, because the old smoking ban law that did not allow smoking in all public buildings and those privately owned business that had the freedom to choose not to allow smoking in their place of business.The old law did not trample on anyones rights, freedoms or liberties. However it did give everyone the right to freely choose what to do, if they were capable, intelligent and respectful enough to so.
But you the CAE were and are not satisfied with having to make a difficult choice and wanted to make every business, etc. your private exclusive domain, without making any difficult decissions and putting smokers in a catagory of being 2nd or 3rd class citizens and having absolutely nowhere to gather, socialize and smoke, which for some or all smokers may be considered by them part of their right to " Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".
I would like to ask you crackinsack, have you ever done anything in your life that may or may not been considered dangerous or unhealthy to anyone besides yourself, such as "talking or texting on your cell phone, while driving your car", "gone over the speed limit", etc.? Why just driving your car spues all kinds of toxins into the air from the exhaust !
I don't know whether anyone else can see it from your comments, but I can certainly see that you will not freely and respectfully accept a repeal of the smoking ban if it is so voted and I already know that the CAE will not freely and respectfully accept a repeal of the smoking ban by way of a public vote.

January 8, 2009 at 11:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Crack,
I have been thinking exactly that, but if I paid for my own air quality testing then wouldn't you and the CAE group say it was biased because it was paid for by me? I will be checking on the cost involved with a testing of my airspace and letting you know what I find out. Maybe CAE would foot the bill?
Steve

January 8, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Hey rbow:
I think another clue to you know who's real identity was just thrown at you in the post of "January 8, 2009 at 11:55 a.m."

January 8, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

rbow:
I think I can safely say that everytime crackinsack visits your bar the air will definately have more poison in it.

January 8, 2009 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P.S.
rbow, you had also better make sure that crackinsack stays outside at least 10 to 20 feet from the door so he/she will not influence the air quality test with her/his poisonous rehortic.

January 8, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

secondintermissions (anonymous) says...

I have been reading the Gazette blogs for some time now, and have yet to make a post. Today, I found something for rbow, to hopefully help with this OSHA testing. Might save us all some time and get us back to what is really at stake.
cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-quality-testing-and-secondhand.html
Being my first post, I can only hope the link works and you all check it out. I found it terribly interesting.
As to the "no slippery slope, the sky is not falling" comment, I would like to counter with this, "It's okay! You weren't using your civil liberties anyway!" Right?!?!?!!

January 8, 2009 at 4:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack:
Tell me was it not your free choice to speed and did you not do so even knowing it was against the law, or did you just not know what the thing on your cars dash with the numbers and needle that says mph was for.
You see its the same with smokers they all know what a no smoking allowed sign is for and usually abide by it and the no smoking sign is not unlike your cars speedometer, (you know that thing with the numbers and needle that says mph), they are both their to protect other people as well as maintain certain rights of the citizens. If you choose to ignore a sign that warns you that smoking is allowed there and you know there is going to be smoke there, and you choose to go there anyway then that is your freedom of choice and you are the only one responsible for putting yourself in a bad situation, isn't that kind of like a speed limit sign, if you choose to ignore the speed limit sign and your cars speedometer you are conciensiously make a freedom of choice that may endanger yourself and others, but you also have the choice to know that if a sign says smoking allowed that you also have the choice not to go their and to obey the speed limit sign and cars speedometer and be safe.
Yet your group, the CAE wants to trash and abolish certain rights of a certain group of people and business owners, which is not right and I believe you know it, but you and the CAE just don't care about respecting other peoples civil liberties, rights or freedoms.
I can also say I have never recieved a speeding ticket in the almost 60 years that I have been driving nor did I ignore a no smoking allowed sign or a request by anyone to stop smoking, when I did smoke and I have always had respect for all peoples civil liberties and rights and freedoms, that is because that was how I was raised, but I was also taught that noone has the right to take away my liberties, rights or freedoms and that they were worth fighting to preserve.
I have a question for you, If you saw a forest fire, would you run toward it or away from it?

January 8, 2009 at 5:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Methusla: Exactly what do you mean by the phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." How does your definition compare to the intent of the original author, John Locke?

It is something you should really look into.

January 8, 2009 at 6:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

chiefsfan (anonymous) says...

Is it just me, or were the posts a lot easier (nicer) to read, not to mention the old blood pressure stayed low, when crack in the head had his little vacation?Just my opinion....

January 8, 2009 at 7:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

chiefsfan;

You said it. Let's ban crackinsack from these blogs. Oh wait, that would be taking away her rights to free speech. I might add that free speech doesn't require her to post her real name. Nothing like spouting off without putting your name out there. Even Oscar Meyer lables their bologna. Is it true that toilets flush in the opposite direction down under?
Steve

January 8, 2009 at 9:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Irishemporia: The following is exactly what I mean by the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. As you can see I have looked into it.
Life is pretty much self explainatory.
Liberty, the freedom to act or believe without being stopped by unnecessary force, is generally considered in modern time to be a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will.
The meaning of "equally free and independent" is unclear and ambiguous, so say the courts of America. The "pursuit of happiness" is one of the "unalienable rights" of people enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, along with "life" and "liberty." "The right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment." Butchers' Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757, (1884.)

Because the right is not set forth in the U. S. Constitution, it is not enforceable by the courts. However, the right to the pursuit of happiness is often raised in arguments against government regulations, because its mention in the Declaration of Independence gives it a degree of forcefulness. Barron's Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed, pg.378.

Although the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is not set forth in the U. S. Constitution, it is set forth in several state Constitutions. The state Constitutions, in their Declaration of Rights, provide that "all men are created equally free and independent; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Information : Kansas Constitution

Constitution of the State of Kansas
Kansas Bill of Rights

1. Equal rights. All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Does that help you understand that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are protected, inalienable, human rights of all the citizens of Kansas !
I just don't know how you or anyone can argue against everyones right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, when even your own States Bill of Rights lists it as the no. 1 protected Right of all citizens of the State of Kansas.

January 8, 2009 at 9:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

trainrech (anonymous) says...

I'm not sure how to take a comment in the following article (see link below). Why threaten employees of cutting hours if the ban isn't overturned? Whether taken out of context or not, doesn't that amount to strong-arming a vote?

http://www.ktka.com/news/2009/jan/08/...

And just when you got used to the term second hand smoke...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/hea...

January 8, 2009 at 10:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

trainrech,
Just a guess that it's not a threat, but a forewarning of the domino effect: lost business = reduces hours.

January 8, 2009 at 10:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

Why does anyone bother with answering Crack? Always spouting the same nonesense over and over, resorting to personal attacks. We know it should go to vote, even Crack knows this, so why bother with the parry and thrust?

January 8, 2009 at 10:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

romano,
Remember when I warned you about the headache from the really dumb brick wall? And we all know that the average brick wall isn't too bright : )
Don't worry folks, crack's offline days (work days, I think crack claimed) start tomorrow!!!!

January 8, 2009 at 10:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

I think I put a dent in that wall oh4.

January 8, 2009 at 11:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alfalfa (anonymous) says...

Believe it or not, when I first read this headline, I thought the story dealt with an attempt to ban fans of the other team from gathering near a basketball goal and taunting players...I guess I am a little out of touch.

January 8, 2009 at 11:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

trainrech - Steve has answered that question many times in other threads. Ban = less customers. Less customers = less income. Less income = less need for staff. Pretty simple business logic. Look at the aviation companies in Wichita. They are all (with the exception of a couple so far) laying off right now for the same reason.

The third hand smoke has already been brought up as well. This will be the next target for CAE (wouldn't surprise me anyway).

January 9, 2009 at 7:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

alfalfa, you're not alone. At first, not being a sports fan, I didn't even read the story thinking that it pertained to banning people from sitting in the section behind the basketball goal. Silly me!

January 9, 2009 at 7:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

trainrech:
Do you own a business, or have employees working for you?
Do you know what the economy is doing right now?
Do you think this ban should come to a vote of all Emporians?
The quote in the article stands. I have told my employees to be ready for a cut in hours or possible lay-offs if the ban stands. When 60-70% of my regulars tell me they won't be staying as long in the bar if they can't smoke, wouldn't you take that as a possible indication of future loss of business?
Keeping my employees informed about their jobs is a part of being a good business person. No strong-arm tactics, just information.
I invite anyone including trainrech to go down and just talk to my "kids". Ask them if I have ever stong-armed them about anything? Ask them what they think about this ban?
I have 3 smokers and two non-smokers working there .
I am almost never there between 1:00 and 4:00 so no-one has to worry about me intimidating anyone.
It is just like CEA and this ban. They say they are speaking for my employees, but have never talked to them.
Steve

January 9, 2009 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

trainrech; rbow is right about this ban hurting his business and other businesses like his and as a thoughtful and respectful businessman, he is right to let his employees know about the possible down side, consequences that a smoking ban will possibly have on his employees, respecting your employees has nothing to do with strong-arming a vote.
I would like to ask you, trainrech and others.
Do you believe that the CAE by their tactic of bypassing a public vote on a smoking ban law and submitting it directly to the City Commission to pass a smoking ban law that will single out and restrict and deny certain individuals and private business owners their "inalienable rights", that by the way is protected by the Kansas "Bill of Rights". Do you not believe that this tactic used by the CAE and its supporters was a blatant example of a "STRONG ARM VOTE", tactic?

January 9, 2009 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sociallyconsious (anonymous) says...

methusla in response to your question "Do you believe that the CAE by their tactic of bypassing a public vote on a smoking ban law and submitting it directly to the City Commission to pass a smoking ban law that will single out and restrict and deny certain individuals and private business owners their "inalienable rights", that by the way is protected by the Kansas "Bill of Rights". Do you not believe that this tactic used by the CAE and its supporters was a blatant example of a "STRONG ARM VOTE", tactic?"

I know by responding to this I am opening myself up to personal attacks by you and others; however, you asked a question and I think it deserves a response. I believe in our way of governing. I believe we elect officials from City office to the President because it would be impossible for us to vote or decide as a "Whole by vote" on every issue which may affect our individual or private inalienable rights. By electing those officials we put our trust in them to do what is best for us. Do I agree with everything they do, no? Can I voice my opinion to them that I do not agree, Yes! At the end of the day I believe in democracy and therefore I gave them the power to make decisions in my best interest. If overall I do not like their decisions, that will affect my decision next time I choose whether to put my best interest in their hands again.

As far as CAE strong arming anyone- well they are an organization which is extremely dedicated to an issue they believe in. Just as many organizations are which protect us, but also can do us harm such as the ACLU, etc. Although I have not read their "playbook" as has been referenced here, I find it no different than any other business or organization which has a business plan on paper. They are not the devil as the people against the ban are not the devil. We just have people who are passionate for a cause on opposite sides who have slightly different agendas.

The business owners and people against the ban have said numerous times that they are against it because it took their right to decide away from them. CAE is for the ban because they believe there is a health hazard and all people should have a right to be protected. These are not the same issues! There can be no winners or losers if you are not even arguing the same argument.

January 9, 2009 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

crack
You know you love the attention and if it really bothers you just think about the amazing new Wendy's restrooms. That always makes me feel better.

January 9, 2009 at 10:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

sociallyconscsious: I agree with the idea of electing government officials to represent the peoples interests in a fair and imparshial way. However when an issue that is brought to them that they know is going to restrict or deny a certain citizen, citizens, or private business owner ( whom is also a citizen) rights, that is protected by the "Bill of Rights" of the STATE OF KANSAS, then the right and fair thing for those elected government officials to do is to bring that issue to a public vote of the people. That is the way DEMOCRACY is supposed to work and when it no longer works that way and favors only those who believe they know whats best for everyone, then you no longer have or can say you live in a DEMOCRACY it becomes "TOTALITARIANISM" !
Now if you feel that I have attacked you by stating plain facts, as I have always tried to do, then it is your perogative to feel that you have been attacked !
And if you or anyone else feels that I have made a personal attack on them, I will answer with a quote from crackinsack,
"Can you give me a few examples of personal attacks I have made on others that weren’t made in self defense" ?

January 9, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Methusla: Good try on the rights issue, but you left out a very key component. Care to try again?

January 9, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

sociallyconsious;
"CAE BELIEVES there is a health hazzard and all people should have a right to be protected" This is from your above post. Where did the old smoking ordinance or the current state statute on smoking NOT give all people the protection rights you speak of?

All PUBLIC BUILDINGS ARE SMOKE FREE.
MOST PRIVATE BUILDINGS ARE SMOKE FREE OR HAVE DESIGNATED SMOKING SECTIONS.
Why doesn't the current law ( a sign on the door) protect peoples health? I have not seen one environmental testing agency in Emporia testing bars or resturants for toxic air, so why all of a sudden do we need this ban for health reasons?
We are still not buying the health isssue of this ban.
Steve

January 9, 2009 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Rbow: You're an intelligent man yet you can't seem to grasp that exposure to second hand smoke is dangerous. What's not to get?

January 9, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

irishemporia: No I do not wish to try again. You are the one who does not get the fact that this smoking ban, in fact targets certain individual citizens, certain private business owners, who happen to be citizens who do have certain guaranteed rights and when you single out these people to either ban, restrict or take away certain of their rights, that can or may be interpreted as a violation of a persons inalienable rights or human rights.
You also do not get the fact that if this was soley a health concern about polluting and breathing toxic air, you and your health crusaders would be trying to ban everything that causes air toxins and polution, ie. vehicle exhaust emmissions that everyone is exposed to, among other things..
Why don't you and the rest of your ban smoking, health crusaders concentrate on banning the real main cause of this ban smoking issue. That being the Tobacco Companys and their products ?
Could it be because the Tobacco Companys are much more wealthy and powerful than the common ordinary citizen of Emporia, Kansas and they are not so easy to try and control ?
Why doesn't the Federal Dept. of Health and Congress pass a law banning Tobacco Companys from producing hazardous products, such as cigarettes, etc. and smoking on a National Level ?
Why do you and the other smoking ban advocates believe that you should not have to make the same lifes choices that eveyone else has to make ?
Is it because you and all ban smoking advocates believe that you are so much better than those who choose to smoke?

January 9, 2009 at 1:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

crack
shs doesn't travel very fast, a car does(or it can anyway). A pedestrian can't easily get away from a car barreling at him or her but it is sooooooooo easy to get away from shs. That is why traffic laws and the pre-ban laws are good and this ban is too much. All you have to do is walk away. You can even do it briskly if you'd like to get some exercise while your at it. You know for your health.

January 9, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

crackinsack,
I was serious about the country club membership. I'll pay for it if you leave my customers alone.

irishemporia,
I am saying IF 2nd hand smoke is dangerous , the levels of it in MY bar are not. Until the government measures the air quality in my bar and other businesses in Emporia then they can't say we are endangering peoples health.
Steve

January 9, 2009 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack: A speeding 4500 pound automobile that is speeding can kill or cripple instantly.I don't think SHS has ever been proven to kill instantly. You tend to try and compare apples and oranges.
You say Kinda like how traffic laws only "target" people who drive cars yet the laws are still there to protect everyone?
I agree that traffic laws are there to protect everyone, however those traffic laws do not target just a certain sector of drivers, as the proposed smoking ban does target a certain sector of persons in society. Where-as the smoking ordinance that is, (was ) in force did no target any specific sector of people it protected the free choice of everyone, by the use of "NO SMOKING" or "SMOKING ALLOWED" or " THIS IS A SMOKING ALLOWED BUSINESS" or "SMOKING SECTION or NON SMOKING SECTION" and gave everyone the right to choose for themselves what to do,
And you and I both know that if this smoking ban is not repealed by a public vote, this ban will only be the beginning of more bans to come.
I have come to realize that trying to logically respond to your twisted posts and logic is as someone said , debating with a brick wall will give you a headache.

January 9, 2009 at 3:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Crack: These boys don't get it. Second Hand Smoke is dangerous and can be deadly. Cars are dangerous and can be deadly. Guns are dangerous and can be deadly.

Yet, all these things are legal BUT (and here is the part they don't admit) REGULATED. As the effects of things like SHS, Cars and guns and a multitude of other things are better understood, laws are passed to help protect the general population. It is NOT an issue of rights but an issue of safety.

To quote someone from an earlier post, if I introduced a product that was potentially deadly to not only the user, but anyone near the user, that was addictive, that was linked to cancer, respiratory problems and a host of other health issues and was even known to have caused a fire or two, do you think it would be allowed? Not on your life.

This is not a rights issue. Nobody is saying you can never smoke, just that you can't smoke around others in public accessible places.

But what those people like Methusla have failed to tell you is that John Locke, whose phase Life, Liberty and Property is the basis for the the words to which the EOB clings, also said, "No one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions. They are the champions with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." The key words, obviously, are "no one ought to harm another" AND "happiness and safety." Therefore, it seems to me, that if you believe in Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness as a standard for which lawmakers govern, and EOB has said they are, then you must also recognize that government of the people, by the people and for the people must act in the best interest of the people. In this case, further regulation of second hand smoke is in the best interest of all the people.

January 9, 2009 at 6:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

irishemporia & crackinsack: I beg to differ with your statement that the phrase, Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness was written by John Locke. This particular phrase as it appears in the Declaration of Independence, was witten by Thomas Jefferson and if you read the following you will see why I say this.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man.

[edit] Phrasing
The phrase is based on the writings of John Locke, who expressed a similar concept of "life, liberty, and estate (property)". Locke said that "no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions."[1]: they are the champions with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." The fact that this document was approved in Virginia just days before the Third Continental Congress met indicates that Jefferson was not influenced by it. However, this can be argued, as another quote by John Locke--“Man... hath by nature a power .... to preserve his property - that is, his life, liberty, and estate - against the injuries and attempts of other men”--while similar, is not the same and is believed to have been quoted before Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence. There are no clear facts on the timing.

Written by Thomas Jefferson, the words rephrase his friend George Mason's words more concisely. The term "liberty" covers a broad spectrum of rights, possibly including the guarantees of the Bill of Rights such as free speech and a fair trial. Jefferson's formulation omits mentioning property rights; he never elaborated on the phrase in his writings, so interpretation is subject to speculation.

FYI, John Locke died 72 years before Thomas Jefferson and George Mason penned the phrase in the Declaration of Independence.
So you see Thomas Jefferson actually wrote the phrase as it appears in the Declaration of Independence and used George Manson's words almost word for word. So you see John Lockes has no influence on the phrase Thomas Jefferson and George Mason penned in 1776.
This phrase also appears in the Kansas State Bill of Rights as the no. 1 right of the people.
As for the meanings of the three words in the phrase I have already posted their interpretations and meanings numerous times, and will not take up space doing so again.
So keep swinging and punching you two, you will get one right one of these days.

January 9, 2009 at 7:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Not written by, but was the foundation of

January 9, 2009 at 7:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Foundation, Shmoundation, its not the same and the meaning is not the same. Nice try thought !

January 9, 2009 at 7:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Let's all agree to disagree. It will come to a vote, and the side that can get their voters out to vote will win. Democracy in action. Let's just all cool out for a couple of days and see what happens.

January 9, 2009 at 9:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I want proof from the CAE group or the City of Emporia that the Air quality in my bar is toxic to humans. Until then>>>>>>>>
Steve

January 9, 2009 at 10:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

Rbow you are wasting your time, they will keep arguing the sky isn't blue and water isnt wet. I keep hearing the argument from crack that secondhand smoke kills flat out. Since this debate started there has been figures from both sides coming to the same conclusion, there is no conclusion. If the smokers have numbers cae has contradictory numbers.

Crack and Irish: Guns and cars are regulated but only at the release of the item. Guns are to sold only once the person is cleared to buy them right? Why then do you turn on the news every night and hear about someone getting shot? Do only the illegal owners have guns? The question is never answered to us if that person bought the gun legally only that it was used illegally. So regulation there obviously didn't help in end result did it?
Cars are regulated before they are sold this is true, but what about after? the answer is no. Think about the guy next to you driving a beat up firebird thats burning oil and putting out fumes that are dangerous and possibly lethal. Then, ask yourself how much regulation helps.
Believe it or not cigarrettes are regulated by the Government and CLEARED by the government.
Hell even fast food is regulated but again only before the sale. A cheeseburger is safe for you to eat, healthy even given the persons diet, but that same person can eat 50 of them guaranteeing a heart attack.
There seems to be a pattern here, regulation happens with almost every purchase in america, though only at or before the purchase rarely after.

January 9, 2009 at 10:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

By the way rbow i was in your bar last week and having been my first time there, I found it quite pleasent

January 9, 2009 at 11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Matt, did you read shelia's e-mail about senator barnetts trip to a smoking ban confrence that was paid for by the same people that make nicorette? The hotel looks pretty swanky wonder if it and his meals and entertainment were paid for by him or Johnson&Johnson?
Steve

January 10, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

romano1784:

Thanks for stopping in, I hope it wasn't too smoky for you.
I am working now on some better ventilation ideas, maybe they will pan out. Anyway I hope you had a good time.
Steve

January 10, 2009 at 9:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

John Locke--“Man... hath by nature a power .... to preserve his property - that is, his life, liberty, and estate - against the injuries and attempts of other men”

Doesn't this ban "injure" the bar owner's property by diminishing it's potential for income?

Wouldn't it just be better if the "attempts of other men" were to simply stay away from smoking allowed places? It seems this would be the easiest way for everyone to respect others lives, liberties, and properties.

January 10, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks; Very good post, I (we) who oppose this smoking ban have been trying to get this very same point across as you did, very eloquently, I might add, I am not quite so eloquent in my nature. But, you will most likely be told "you just don't get it" by those who support a smoking ban, when they are actually the ones who, as they say "don't get it".
Romano 1784- Your post was also an excellant post. Keep it up ! You are also one who "gets it", even though you may be told by the ban supporters that "you don't get it", but you definately do "get it".

January 10, 2009 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

If cigarette smoke is so toxic, why isn't the federal government taking action to make it illegal to produce or to sell to the general public. Prescription meds have more regulations on them than cigarettes do. Since we know from substances like marijuana, crack--I mean cocaine, heroin, opium and a number of other flat out illegal substances that the government does, in fact, take action against these kinds of things, why hasn't cigarette production been banned? If so many lethal chemicals are added to the tobacco, you would think that such a government would somehow regulate how much is allowed to be added, or even what is allowed to be added. Oh wait----They do!!!!! Okay, so it must just be that cigarettes are so new that they just don't know yet--not enough time to study all the different chemicals and their effects on us, whereas those other substances--the now illegal ones--are all so old and were in use for centuries before studies convinced the government to illegalize them. Well, no...............people have been smoking and being exposed to second-hand smoke for longer than most of those others have been known.
It must just be that our federal government acknowledges that there is a certain amount of risk in life. Some of that risk is mandatory, and some of it is elective. It has recognized that there are some substances that pose no more risks than those of everyday life and some that pose unreasonable risks to it's citizens and that it is unreasonable to outlaw all elective risks.
All the studies on second-hand smoke fail to provide a death statistic that comes close to matching the death statistics of "second-hand alcohol" so if it won't illegalize alcohol for those reasons, then it won't illegalize cigarettes for that reason.
The illegalization of cigarettes if they posed such health risks would be no more of an infringement on personal rights than the illegalization of meth is. To expect one's own community to create those laws based on evidence that even the state or federal government won't adopt due to it's inconclusive nature is absurd.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see everyone quit smoking AND drinking alcohol because I believe it would improve everyone's mental and physical health, but there is not enough scientific data to support the removal of those elements from our society because they are not higher risks to ANYONE'S health than some occupations are. I guess I will just have to recognize drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes and BEING AROUND CIGARETTE SMOKE as being elective risks that I am responsible for choosing.

January 10, 2009 at 12:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

We can play the statistics all day but if it wasnt cigarrettes it would be fireworks, drinking, fast food, driving, motorcycling, running, walking, bungee jumping, fourwheeling, guns, pollution, all have legitamite death rates. Why dont we skip the middle man and say,"No more happiness, it may get you hurt or killed."
I am reminded of a friend of my grandfather who told me two weeks before he passed away. "I never drank, smoked cigarrettes, did drugs, had multiple women. I've been married 47 years. I am one boring old man. Do me a favor kid and live like there is no tomorrow."
That is his actual statement to me, and by god I was taught to respect my elders so I took his advise and never worry about tomorrow. I'll live for today. Will my smokes one day give me cancer? I don't care because it didnt happen today.

January 10, 2009 at 1:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

secondintermissions (anonymous) says...

"There's Nothing Second-hand About the Truth"
http://www.sharedsacrifice.us/Jan8Coo...
A frank and poignant opinion given by student, Town Royal regular, and my friend, Matt Cook. It "hit home", as they say.
And buy the way, the snake's not smoking a Parliament. We couldn't have that! I made it from scraps of paper. :)

January 10, 2009 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Very good article--thank you for sharing it, secondintermissions

January 10, 2009 at 9:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

secondintermissions- The article on the website you posted is a very excellent, to the point, truthful and thought provoking article, everyone should read.
However those that support a smoking ban will undoubtedly say that Matt Cook, "just doesn't get it"!
oh4theluvof- Your last comment is also an excellent one.
However you like so many others will be accused, by the ban supporters will or have told you " you just don't get it" . When in actuality, they are the ones that" absolutely don't get it".

January 10, 2009 at 9:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

ummm, I dont get it??? Get what, where, oh...

January 10, 2009 at 11:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

That's okay, methusla, I can handle it. If I can handle family members criticizing my parenting and my own kids not liking my decisions, I'll survive the non-impacting opinions of anonymous townsfolk just fine.
romano: Any relation to Ray? The sense of humor implies it. ; )

January 11, 2009 at 12:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hardchelle (anonymous) says...

Wow again!! Not even going to try to keep up!! Anyway, Steve and Matt once again great job on the blogs and kudo's on the signatures! Can't speak for anyone but myself and my bar.... I run a business that I am very proud of. We, (as most of us of are), an ADULT establishment! Figure it out. Come in and stay or turn around and walk out. Pretty darn simple!! We are legal, sell a legal product and allow people to smoke a legal product!!!! HHHMMMMM Where is the problem??? Let us run our businesses PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!

January 11, 2009 at 1:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

secondintermissions:

Might I recomend that the well-written article above be e-mailed to Chris Walker as a possible op-ed piece? If nothing else Matt might get a job at the Gazette replacing Patrick Kelly. WAY TO GO!
Steve

January 11, 2009 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Without giving too much away to the opposition, we have compared 378 signatures to the voter registration lists and 309 were good. We feel this is about average for petition drives and are slowley but surely verifying the rest of the signatures, Gosh it takes a while to do it.

In the mean-time if you are a registered voter, living in the city of Emporia, and haven't yet signed a petition you know where they are at. Stop by, time is running short.
Steve

January 11, 2009 at 12:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MatthewCook (anonymous) says...

Thanks for all the kind comments, folks. I've been off-and-on observing what goes on in these forums, and the discussions- though misdirected at times- are healthy and worth our time and consideration.

The article above is an introduction, really. A more detailed and aggressive article will be written later, detailing the progress. The implications of an overturn would- neigh should- be huge, and I want Emporia to be known as a town of active people, unwilling to have a nation's morality haphazardly placed upon it. A referendum is a win for any concept of democracy that my feeble mind is clinging to. But an overturn is a win for Emporia.

January 11, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Mathew Cook- As you probably know by reading these forums, particularly the smoking ban forums, I am an elder citzen of Emporia. And I care, sometimes with a little to much passion about the rights, libertys and freedoms of all the citizens and get really upset when any individual, group of individuals, try to pull a fast one and remove or restrict any individuals rights. Especially when that individual or group of individuals try and use or influence our elected officials to force their beliefs and way of living upon all citizens, especially certain citizens and private business owners.
I am looking forward to your next article.

January 11, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

Oh4thelove- I am sorry no I'm not related, though I have met him once in Kansas City. He was doing stand up and asked me my name. He thought I was making fun of him during the show and actually asked to see my ID to prove my name is Anthony Romano. The crowd got a kick out of it and I got to do my first stand up gig that night an hour later. I know this has no bearing on the ban, but we rarely have any happy post in here, I thought Id throw one out.

January 11, 2009 at 10:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )