Posted by djdiablo (anonymous) on January 13, 2009 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The sad truth of this is, Doug, there really are communities that HAVE expanded smoking bans to include fireplaces and, yes, even outdoor grilling with wood or charcoal.

As to the Emporia commission, don't be so hard on them, they're only doing it for us. It is obvious none of us are smart enough to make our own decisions on issues such as this.

(Now, ain't we lucky?)

Posted by agoldengirl (anonymous) on January 13, 2009 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes Doug, Saint Theresa has come to rescue all of us that have sinned. Her crusade has saved us all from all of our concerns and fears of job losses, and the silly little problems with the economy. They are nothing compared to the tobacco concerns that effect us much more than the media issues. I think we should all trust that she has a plan to save us all and pray that she delivers. I don't think we should let all of the worlds woes be more important than making everyone believe this is God's plan for her to save us from ourselves. I know our men and women in combat will be happy to hear that she hasn't requested a no smoking ban for them "until they are able to return home", then I suppose she will start with them next. Who cares how much it cost to heat our homes it's worth paying high heat bills so we don't pollute anyone's air. And the city would love to fine us for not mowing our lawns in the sake of the Theresa law. Come on people, it's time we stick our noses into her private business and see what she has to repent for.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 13, 2009 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey people, don't fret, she is a new County Commissioner, so she will be taking her holier than thou agenda and crusade county wide next.
Heck she may even run for a national congressional seat next, and take her, "Everyone is dumber than me and beneath me attitude" Nation wide. Can you just imagine that scenario ! Heck if she did win a national congressional seat, she just might even rewrite or ban the Constitution and Bill of Rights and proclaim herself "Empress Theresa the Great of Theresa Land" !

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on January 13, 2009 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If this ban gets defeated on a city level, even a blind man can see that our new commissioner will push to a smoking ban on the county agenda. Maybe her co-commissioners will vote her down, but I doubt it. People are working hard to get this ban to a vote; with petitions etc. Makes me furious that it will probably be for not, and we will assuredly be fighting this battle again (if it is defeated by a vote), in the future on a county wide level.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on January 13, 2009 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Outsider:
I have had an incredibly frazzling day (not related to the petitions) and have very little to no positive energy left, but I can still assure you that any work by regular citizens to call their fellow citizens to action is not "all for naught." As I ran the petitions yesterday, and even a tiny bit today, I have been encouraged to see the thoughts registering across people's faces when I express to them that it is time to let the commissioners know where their job ends. We are setting boundaries for them and it may take a repeat effort or two or even three, but if we are consistent, they will eventually get it. It is up to us to spur each other on and "tag-team" each other as they try to wear us back down into complacency--we can do it!!! If we are making it very clear that the petition is less about smoking and more about them not overstepping the boundaries, they will eventually get it--or be forced to leave. The one discouraging thing I have encountered is the principal of my kid's school telling others behind my back that "this is not the place to do something like that" when I asked very specific people who happened to also be picking up their kids--my kid's friends. If kids saw me at all, all they saw was someone investing in the community that is outside of and bigger than just the school itself. Where should they learn that, if not at school. That represented to me the community's lack of involvement due to lack of any civic education which is why these people think they can go as far as they did. Let's get out there and petition (not just on this--we need a nine precinct commission adopted too) and get our neighbors, co-workers, friends and family members to understand that they have a voice and how to use it.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof,

Thanks for carrying the petitions, sounds like your doing better than most of us. I hope the principle hears your side of the story, maybe he/she missed civics class when they went to school. One of my petitioners was run out of a downtown store, and hadn't even asked anyone to sign. The owner just saw the clipboard and told them to leave. I sat outside a local industry in my truck, (with a sign on it) and the police were called. I was a suspicious subject @3:00 in the afternoon. No charges were filed, and the police and I had our chuckle, It was probably the 1st call to them relating to the new smoking ban. Some just don't get it. I'm glad that you and those signing the petitions do>
Steve Corbin

Posted by ZaneRokklyn (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought we already had a ban on running gasoline engines *indoors*. I'm not sure why the distinction between indoors and outdoors is so hard for some people to make. Indoors is what we call a place where the air doesn't flow freely, so your smoke winds up in my lungs. That is not so much a problem outdoors. My 4 year old nephew understands this distinction, but maybe it's not common knowledge.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

outsiderJ;

In no way will this all be for naught.
If we can defeat this at a city vote, there will be no-way the county commission would try it ,Tereasa or not. It would also send a message to our state representitives that could not be ignored.

agoldengirl:

People in public office do open up their private lives to public scrutinity, it's the nature of the beast. But the time to cast stones has not been reached yet.
Steve

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof-
I couldn't agree more with your statement and would like to thank you for your part in the petition drive. Additionally, thank you for brightening my outlook on this situation. I have signed the petition and I meet the criteria for my signature to be valid. We can fight the good fight and it is my hope that we win it.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Zane--
Do we? Do we really have a ban on running gasoline engines indoors. I would be interested in seeing that. Seems like that one is violated quite a bit. Alot of lawn care companies park their mowers indoors. Do you think the push them in there or drive them. Alot of farmers stow their tractors in the barn. How do they get them in there? Alot of people keep generators in a shed. They run them in that shed, and have a pipe not unlike a chimney to run the exhaust to the "outdoors".

Hey there's a novel idea. We could solve the second hand smoke problem with adequate ventilation systems. Then you wouldn't have to worry about your lungs, and you would have a whole new fun set of things to explain to your nephew. Like how the system works, or how it keeping smoke out of your lungs, etc. etc.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ever think maybe there are some people out there that do not agree with your line of thinking and don't want to be bothered? How dare they exercise their right to ignore you.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just keep ignoring, and don't bother to vote in April .
Steve

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe just maybe they are ignoring you because they plan to vote against your cause in April? This is a rights issue to you correct? Well if rights are such an issue then infringing on those that don't see eye to eye with you and and are choosing to exercise their rights in a different way is hypocritical now isn't it? Advocating people not to vote either? So registering people for your cause while advocating others not vote? Oh dear I've gone cross-eyed. Better examine that line of thinking a bit sir.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The sad truth of this is, Doug, there really are communities that HAVE expanded smoking bans to include fireplaces and, yes, even outdoor grilling with wood or charcoal."

Where is this taking place? I am curious.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Aren't the EPD cars parked inside? Do they turn off their engines and coast in? Are they breaking the law?

I have a four year old myself and have found it very very easy to keep her away from shs. I doubt she would even know what shs smells like. I seriously can't figure out why some people find it impossible to avoid shs.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Last I knew there were necessary evils in life, things we cannot get around doing, smoking is not one of them. A great many of these comparisons really have 0 merit because they are not elective tasks, smoking is.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Are you saying that parking mowers, tractors, police cars, personal vehicles, and all other gasoline run vehicles indoors (or running them indoors for extended periods of time such as a service station or repair shop) is mandatory or something we can't get around doing. I thought it was banned to run them indoors. Seems like they are elective to me.

You forget, we are not talking about smoking. We are talking about second hand smoke. Exposure to second hand smoke is also elective.

My contention based on your comment goodoleboy, is that the rights of private business owners to cater to their clientel based on the preferences of their customers and the free market does not fall under your list or "necessary evils".
As Steve Corbin might say,
"Sad sad sad"

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

reading comprehension is something that is apparently nonexistent here, I said

"A great many of these comparisons really have 0 merit because they are not elective tasks, smoking is."

Keyword- many

Did I say all?

My point was that a great MANY of the comparisons drawn out here are for lack of a better word, ridiculous, as in there is no logic to them.

Sad,sad,sad is your ability to analyze what I said. I said nothing about rights I said a great many of these comparisons were without merit.

Posted by djdiablo (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi, I'm Blanche...DiAblo is out of town today and I'm not sure what specific places he was talking about, but here's an interesting piece from the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE...please read it all...the story is not in the proposed ban on "bad-air" days, the real story I think is in the way certain minds work...

"A proposed ban on burning wood in the Bay Area's 1 million fireplaces and stoves on bad-air days has drawn praise - and heat - from hundreds of residents as regulators consider how to balance the health risks of inhaling smoke against the need to stay warm.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's plan to restrict wood burning comes after federal officials imposed tighter limits on emissions of fine particles, a move that regional officials say could lead them to declare 20 Spare the Air days during the winter season. There have been six such days in the region since November.

After sifting through more than 400 comments, Bay Area air-quality officials plan to refine their proposal by spring, intending to put new rules in place by next winter. Presto logs and logs made of coffee grounds and nutshells would be regulated like wood.

"We know there are very toxic components in wood smoke," said Dr. Janice Kim, public health medical officer with the air toxicology and epidemiology branch of the state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

People who burn wood "are exposing themselves, their neighbors and their families to harmful compounds, including carcinogens," Kim said.

Influenced by a rash of studies showing that wood smoke poses severe health hazards, two-thirds of the residents who commented on the air district's plan said they favor mandatory controls on haze, smoke and airborne dust to control pockets of plumes in their neighborhoods.

Paul Spiegel of Walnut Creek said, "There is no escape from inhaling these emissions, even inside your own home with an air-cleaner going." He complained that people use green wood and construction waste that burn dirty.

Spiegel said he'd accept more government controls "to allow these chronic and abusive wood-burners to needlessly pump our lungs full of their irritating, penetrating and persistent fumes and particulates which bring great risks to our immediate and long term health." "

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy- Everything a person does outside their natural bodily functions is an elective task, such as driving a polluting car, burning polluting wood in your fireplace, kissing your kids, banning other peoples rights and libertys are all elective tasks.
However there are those elective tasks that have a high priority of 0 merits, such as restricting the rights and libertys of certain people and business owners, relagating certain persons and business owners as people to be treated as 2nd or 3rd class citizens, forcing others to live by your standards of living and life style, looking down your nose and degrading a person or persons because they do not live by your life style or have not achieved a high social or wealth status. So you see everything that you do outside you natural bodily fuctions and reflexes is an elective function, that everyone has the right to choose to do or not do.
If you think you are going to be healthy and live forever, you are dead wrong.

Posted by djdiablo (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And this...

ELK GROVE VILLAGE -- On the heels of Illinois’ new statewide smoking ban, a small coalition of activists are launching a campaign to ban second hand smoke from wood-burning stoves and fireplaces.

Elk Grove Village resident Kenneth Dubinski is leading a group called Breathe Healthy Air that supports the cause.

A longtime anti-smoking advocate who fought for the state’s smoking ban, Dubinski said he’s bothered by wood smoke from his neighbors’ homes.

“The main thing is people are worried about secondhand smoke. That’s what this is,’’ he said. “I come home and get headaches.’’

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No they are not elective tasks, people have to get to work, people have to stay warm, people do not HAVE to smoke. A person burning wood to stay warm because they cannot afford their gas bill is perfectly fine, and this is not elective. A person driving their vehicle to get to work is not elective( riding a bike is feasible) I have seen some pretty outrageous comparisons in this thread, I use these two just as an example. These are not elective, they are a way of life for without we would freeze or not provide for our families. Pretty cut and dry.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The following is something I posted on another forum in response to the article in the link and I think it's relevant on this thread. I realize I am a conspiracy theorist and should just shut up but there seems to be some writing on the wall that might be worthy of a second glance.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/156975/us...
"We don't need more unnecessary laws or more and bigger government but I fear it's coming. I have a theory that I hope is wrong but we'll see. I think that since the "big government" party blew the other party out of the water in the last election on the federal level that it has emboldened those that believe government is the answer to all their problems to push their agendas(like the smoking ban and other bans) even harder and faster than before."

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy:
Are you crack posting under another name, sounds like it!

YOU are the one who said people didn't want to be bothered with a certain position and they CHOOSE to Ignore it. As for my post suggesting you don't vote and ignore us it was that, a suggestion. You do have the right to vote or not, I don't care one way or another. After reading some posts on this gazette forum I hope a few are coming from non-voters. As far as registering voters , ALL have been invited to register, not just the ones that agree with me. Show me anywhere in print or on these boards where I said we were registering only people that were against this ban, and I'll kiss your butt. Assuming we can get your head out of the way first!
Steve

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eloquent as usual Steve, resorting to insults now are we? Seeing you cry about people who choose to ignore you is pretty darn funny to me. Keep up the rhetoric, you'll just a lose a few votes out of spite, I personally have 0 say the matter either way because I cannot vote on the matter, just a spectator.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy;
I truly apologize for saying you sounded like crack, that was an insult.

I stand by everything else I posted.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if Teresa had kept her nose out of my business.
Steve

Posted by rcakmon (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve, your "business" doesn't stop at your lungs...you share your business whenever you smoke in public. Don't blame others who don't want to inhale your bad habit.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rcakmon:
My business starts at my front door. I ask that you use your right to choose not to open that door, and let the ones that do smoke the right to continue to come in. And I don't smoke in public where it is unlawful to do so.
Steve

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well hello hello, I smell a good debate.
rcakmon-, "your "business" doesn't stop at your lungs...you share your business whenever you smoke in public." No, we share our personal choice when we smoke in public. However this ban is only to stop smoking in businesses, not in public. A little confused are you? One good thing about being a non smoker i suppose is that you can smell cigarrettes much more clearly than a smoker. when you smell them, stop, think, and walk away. That eliminates steve's business from becoming your business. Problem solved.
Hey goodoleboy- I'm sure you haven't forgotten me."No they are not elective tasks, people have to get to work, people have to stay warm, people do not HAVE to smoke"
People do have to get to work, however its only necessary for a small amount to Drive to work. People do have to stay warm, that doesn't mean you have to run a heater. People do not Have to smoke, that doesn't mean in any way they shouldn't. Personal choice olboy. Hit me with your best shot folks.

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Innovation not ignorance. Catchy phrase crack. Your right we should all get with the times. A government that cant take care of itself much less its people. Sensitivity is so high you cant say hello to someone without offending them, try to light a cigarette now, you'd think you tried to kill em. We have five times the diseases sprout up in the name of Technology. So by all means downtalk the people who grew up with clean air, low crime rate, honor and dignity crack.
Tell you what I'll move to the right first, even with all the progress as you call it in the fast lane I bet I still catch you at the red light.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"People do have to get to work, however its only necessary for a small amount to Drive to work."

I stopped reading right here, no more needs to be said, google up some facts, accept your humility. People get warm how?

Wood=lets off emissions
Electricity= workers have to generate this for you(see driving) also some is generated by means that produces emissions
Gas= probably the cleanest out there with new high efficiency heating, still has byproduct though.

So next your gonna tell me the trains, planes and trucks that support our entire infrastructure are not necessary? Or the mail carriers, police cars and ambulances? You realize how ludicrous you sound right?

Hell if these things are elective then we would not be having this discussion because bars and restaurants would be out of business, much less cigarettes would not be hauled in either lol.

Wow, just wow.......

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rbow posted: "goodoleboy: Are you crack posting under another name, sounds like it!"

I would also add the names KSTrebuchet and Joe to this...the antagonistic posting styles and manner of writing are all very similar.

Posted by agoldengirl (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sister Theresa why haven't you yet figured it out that we do no need you to take care of us or our families health let alone our local business people who are trying to make a living and take care of their own families. Your nose is so not wanted to make all of you pretty people be noticed. We already know who you are and frankly you aren't that cute and you aren't that popular with the real home fokes of Emporia. Francis was a man that gave us all more than we could eat at Wendy's and never disclosed the fat grams. I never saw a no smoking sign in his window. It was just understood by us stupid people that he didn't have to SPELL IT OUT like you do. you didn't complain about how much we contributed to his business, so why are you so compelled to care about us now? Lets relive when he was on the commission, did he have any concerns about smoking bans? not. You may have been elected to sit on the county commission, but I challange you to go to your rural communities and ask the farmers and ranchers to put out their butts on their properties. I am just guessing but you will probably be escorted out by a mule, as that would be fitting coming from a family that provides for their family. Did you get it yet. We don't care what you think. Shut up and pay attention.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy- You are dead wrong on what an elective is, an elective is anything that you choose or elect to do, that includes driving your car to get to work, burning wood in your fireplace, smoking or not smoking, and your way of life is also an elective, because you choose or elect how to live your life, which is your way of life, just like trying to force others to live your way of life is also elective, because you choose to do so, in case you didn't know it electve means having the power to choose. You sir make some pretty poor comparisons yourself.

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe you should have read more olboy. I will simplify it for you. Cars are used more than is necessary. Google the stats if you want, you'll see that Americans will drive a block just because its cold outside. That is unnecessary. If you live within two miles of your job, you dont need to drive, but it is easier to drive. The most leading cause of obesity is lack of exercise caused by: driving. Google it.
FYI people have to work for Gas as well, which lets of emissions. Electricity is cleaner.
Hey crack next time you pick up some medication for any ailness you may come up with read the side of the bottle for side effects, youll understand the technology statement, or you wont depending on how much you want to argue.
Crack we have all heard your "Smokes are pointless and serve no purpose" speech, and once again we ignore it. The sole purpose is that we want it. Plain and simple. You dont have to like it, you don't have to understand it, but you do have to accept it. Even if this bans passes it will not eliminate the smokers, actually it will cause more people to smoke. You will be suprised with the rebellion it will cause. And what better way to rebel against non smokers than to smoke. Before you say it I am not suggesting if the ban passes that people should violate it, this before goodoleboy passes me off as a blatant, ignorant law breaker again.

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"This is exactly the kind of backwards thinking you can expect from those opposed to the ban."
Huh this coming from crackinsack, small wonder.

I'll give you the life expectancy rate. Its true people are living longer lives, to bad they cant live fuller lives. I would like to spend one day as you crack. Constantly worry about tomorrow while I'm hiding in my home with the door locked scared of who is going to violate my health next. I wish I could say i'm sorry for that crack but im not. See the truth is i am one of those people who lives life to the fullest. I spend time with my wife and son, I talk to strangers. Funny how they turn into friends. I guarantee you crack for a smoker I can run you into the ground. I love the world around me, you seem to mourn it.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ROFL@goodoleboy!!
"Sorry if I get incensed at people like you who take a debate personal when its not."
Well, then Mr. goodoleboy! Your given name must be "alcohol" because you sure took a few things personally about that last week.
Ow, my sides............

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

romano1784

Whoa whoa whoa here is your direct quote.

""People do have to get to work, however its only necessary for a small amount to Drive to work.""

You go from this to:

" Cars are used more than is necessary"

That is a huge disparity you have there, backpeddling are we? I read your post fine, perhaps YOU should CLARIFY your statements and ensure that they do in fact depict your intentions.

You also said:
"FYI people have to work for Gas as well, which lets of emissions. Electricity is cleaner."

One of the main ways electricity is generated is by coal plants, so while gas may burn cleaner the effects are debatable, sure electricity is clean, but how it is generated is the true conundrum.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"goodoleboy- You are dead wrong on what an elective is, an elective is anything that you choose or elect to do, that includes driving your car to get to work, burning wood in your fireplace, smoking or not smoking, and your way of life is also an elective, because you choose or elect how to live your life, which is your way of life, just like trying to force others to live your way of life is also elective, because you choose to do so, in case you didn't know it electve means having the power to choose. You sir make some pretty poor comparisons yourself."

So I can elect to go to work when the weather is like it is? The police, fire and mail service can elect to serve who they choose to service? People can elect to burn wood in their stove to stay warm or freeze? Sorry not buying it, these are necessary to live, there needs and wants in life, keeping warm, getting to work, etc are needs, smoking is a want. Comparing a habit to something that provides one their livelyhood is a poor comparison.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Today, Paul Harvey's spot on kvoe, the issue of third hand smoke was brought up. Boy howdy, this is going to help our cause in overturning the ban. Now if we can just get someone to bring up fourth hand smoke we could beat this by a landslide. It certainly gives meaning to the slippery slope theory, or should we re-name it SLOPPERY-SLOPE.
Steve

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And sombody's paranoia is showing.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy- You miss the whole definition of the word "elective", which is the" power to choose". You and only you have the choice or elective to get a job and go to work, drive a car ( to work), eat or drink where you choose, etc., some of these things I agree are necessary to live, but noone is forcing you to do any of these things, hence the term " elective" or choice or choices. However when you start forcing people to do or not do certain things, according to your elective wishes or wishes of your choosing, then you have succeeded in taking away their right to make elective choices and it makes no difference whether their choices seem like unnecessary things to you or others, it is still everones right to make elective choices with out anyone telling or forcing them to do otherwise.
How would you react if someone was trying to restrict or take away any of those things that you believe is necessary, or part of your way of life or you believe is your right to make an elective choice to do and where to do it ?
Think about it !

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

methusla
Empathy is not something oleboy is capable of from what I have seen on these forums. I have tried and tried in a number of creative ways to get him to understand what you are saying now. Perhaps when something that he cares about gets banned the maybe he'll at least then be able to sympathize with those that cared about this loss of rights.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

seriouslyfolks- You maybe absolutely right and I will try and refrain from responding to any of goodoleboys posts.
I don't remember whether I have said on this forum or not but I used to be a smoker, but quit in 1984, but I still believe that people have the right to choose to live their life as they choose to do, and that includes smoking if they so choose !

Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rbow posted: "goodoleboy: Are you crack posting under another name, sounds like it!"

I would also add the names KSTrebuchet and Joe to this...the antagonistic posting styles and manner of writing are all very similar.

Trying to keep out of this didn't work. This is the second time I've seen similar from Mr.O.

While I have to agree with the posting styles being "similar" I can pretty much garranty they aren't the same person. I know who kstreb. WAS. I don't know who crackhead is but I am willing to wager a pretty big bet they aren't the same person. Besides (Gwen) isn't it against policy or something?! to be guessing at who people are/trying to flush them out?!

Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks crack. I want to up my anti that Mr.O is WRONG about who you are. I'm 100% positive you aren't kstreb now. ROLAO. Sorry all forthe hijack its just to funny not to comment. I am done now.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Weltha;
Most of us old folks don't really care who crackinsack is. It is obvious she wants to remain anonymous out of fear for her life. But it is amazingly clear how the pro-socialists think because their posts are so much alike. I think at least you are not afraid of your thoughts as you sign in under Weltha, & I assume that is your name, but I have been wrong a couple of times before.
Steve

Posted by djdiablo (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

An interesting article and the sort that we don't hear too much about in this discussion...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006...

In part it concludes:

"A New England Journal of Medicine study found that even back in 1975 -- when having smoke obnoxiously puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants, cocktail lounges and transportation lounges -- the concentration was equal to merely 0.004 cigarettes an hour. That's not quite the same as smoking two packs a day, is it? But none of this has the least impact on the various federal, state and city agencies and organizations like the American Lung Association for a very good reason. They already know they're scientifically wrong. The purpose of the passive smoking campaign has never been to protect non-smokers, but rather to cow smokers into giving up the habit.

It's easy to agree with the ultimate goal, but inventing scientific outcomes and shutting down scientific debate as a means is as intolerable as it was when Nazi Germany "proved" the validity of eugenics. "

Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve, Yeah I really don't either I just think its funny the few who do and can't drop it. Weltha, is my maiden name. Therefore not to hard to figure me out if they are so inclined to do so. I really don't care either way. It just saves my hubby some grief from me pi$$ing people off. Not that I go out of my way to do that. anyway on to bigger and better. I wish you all luck. I don't live in the city limits and even though this affects too, I can't have my say legally. So I get on here and egg ya'll on that can. Like I said in another post its not that I'm pro-smoking I'm just anti-ban.

djdiablo- great post.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"goodoleboy- You miss the whole definition of the word "elective", which is the" power to choose". You and only you have the choice or elective to get a job and go to work, drive a car ( to work), eat or drink where you choose, etc., some of these things I agree are necessary to live, but noone is forcing you to do any of these things, hence the term " elective" or choice or choices. However when you start forcing people to do or not do certain things, according to your elective wishes or wishes of your choosing, then you have succeeded in taking away their right to make elective choices and it makes no difference whether their choices seem like unnecessary things to you or others, it is still everones right to make elective choices with out anyone telling or forcing them to do otherwise.
How would you react if someone was trying to restrict or take away any of those things that you believe is necessary, or part of your way of life or you believe is your right to make an elective choice to do and where to do it ?
Think about it !"

Om so lets all quit our jobs, go on welfare and live in shacks. Great plan bud, let me know how that works out for you lol.

You speak of choice eh? Well how come if I want to go to a bar and someone is smoking there I have two options, suck up their fumes or leave, in essence the smoker is making the choice to infect everyone around them with their poison. Let me walk into a bar and put a chew in and spit on someone and see how that goes over, or force a drink down your throat that you don't like, that sound bad to you? tough go somewhere else right? The very nature of the habit IS the problem because it directly affects the others around you, notice we are not talking about a chewing ban, or a dry county here, hmm? You speak of choices yet you don't even realize your making choices for people already when you light up in public.Solid logic there bud, solid indeed.

PS When I go on welfare I am making a CHOICE that you will pay my bills for me, whether you like it or not, sounds fair right? Oh god I've gone cross eyed again.......

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You all want to talk about clean air, and lack thereof... Wait til it warms up a little, and ride a bicycle or walk/run down 6th street at 5 pm. Seriously, try it sometime, and then come back on here and whine about air quality in a bar...

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

djdiablo
Thanks for posting that link. Unlike some I actually read the whole thing and won't ask questions that were pretty much answered in the article. It really points out what the thought process behind these bans are. People just want this ban so bad that they will ignore any argument against it no matter where it comes from. This is the "Next on the agenda" forum and that is what I fear. What is next? The line of thinking that goes along with this ban is not just going to be satisfied with this ban but will look for it's next "fix" like a crack head(no offense crack I wasn't talking about you). There are already huge taxes coming down the pipes on everything from ammo to tobacco to cow farts. It's going to get crazy but we voted for big government I guess. Well I didn't, myself and apparently about 6 other people voted for a third party but that didn't seem to do much.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If anyone hates and despises smoking, anyone who smokes and businesses that allow smoking, why would that person, knowingly enter an environment, that they claim is so unhealthy, when they are aware that people are smoking and smoke is present, when there are a number of other places they can go that do not allow smoking, spitting on someone or pouring grease down someones throat, like another poster mentioned doing. Especially when that person who hates smoke, smoking or anyone who smokes, probably doesn't frequent those smoking businesses or places that allow smoking in the first place. Seems to me those people who despise smoking, people who smoke and places that allow smoking, have nothing better to do with their lives, than childishly complain, cry and whine about how other people live their lives.
What will be the next thing these criers, whiners and complainers see fit to demand a ban on ?

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"run me into the ground"...I'm not sure if that was a threat of violence or a challenge to a foot race... You like to spend time with your wife and son? That's great! Do they consider your SHS living life to the fullest? Does your family enjoy your habit as much as you do? If your son in school, does he get teased about how his clothes smell? Does your family appreciate you lowering your life span? Do they like the idea that you could be lowering theirs?
well lets start with item one: footrace
My wife respects my decision to smoke, as I respect hers. Smoking is just another thing about us. My son is two, and with all the things kids tease each other about I think smoking won't even make the top 10. Am I lowering my life span, or theirs? Well since I don't smoke around my son, Id say no though you'll argue with me. If I am lowering my lifespan I'll just skip the part where I can't do for myself. I'd rather die at 60 happy with my life, than hold on till I'm a hundred and cant control my bodily functions. You dont want lung cancer, what kind do you want, odds are your gonna get it. If not lung, then liver, kidney, colon, pancreas take your pick. And just as I've pointed out numerous times, whenever I'm around a non smoker who doesn't like cigarettes I either A dont light up, B move away, or C put out my smoke. I'm doing my part to stop my habit from affecting others, think you can shut up and do yours?

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy ""People do have to get to work, however its only necessary for a small amount to Drive to work.""

You go from this to:

" Cars are used more than is necessary"

I dont see the complication. I'll break it down, I'm typing slow since apparently you dont read fast. Everybody needs to get to work, not everyone needs to drive to get there. Take a walk, a run, ride a bike, get some exercise. Cars are used more than necessary, just because it gets you there quicker doesn't mean you need to use it.
I'd say that one statement explains the other. Not everyone needs to drive just to get to work, ergo cars are used more than is necessary.

Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)

romano- I understood your posts just fine. Then again I started reading them with open eyes and an open mind. I didn't start reading looking for more than was there just
to start an arguement.

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Between 70% and 90% of non-smokers in the American population, children and adults, are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. It is estimated that only 15% of cigarette smoke gets inhaled by the smoker. The remaining 85% lingers in the air for everyone to breathe. If a person spends more than two hours in a room where someone is smoking, the nonsmoker inhales the equivalent of four cigarettes.
Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of disability and early death (after active smoking and alcohol) in the United States. For every eight smokers who die from smoking, one innocent bystander dies from secondhand smoke.
-- Posted By Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by Pingeon (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why can't there be a few places that smokers could gather, socialize and have a good time? If non-smokers wanted to go there, then they would be fully aware they will be around SHS. If they didn't want to go there, they had the choice. Why do smokers have to be banned to their home or car and that's it? Why does it have to be all or nothing?

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

commonsenseemporia,
The truth is every study used by the anti-smoking group on second hand smoke has been proven to be flawed and the data manipulated. A comprehensive list of these studies is illustrated in the Environmental Protection Agency document EPA/600/6-90/006F, page 5-28 and 5-29.
In fact, no study supports the anti-smoker's claims, even after being manipulated. But, they defend their second hand smoke propaganda because it effectively serves their purpose of advancing their socialist goals.

Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) is hundreds or thousands of times as dilute as mainstream smoke. Casual exposure to ETS (say a couple of hours per week in a bar) exposes the non-smoker to perhaps one ten-thousandth of what a smoker gets. Although the amount that gets into the bloodstream might be measurable in a laboratory, the effect on the exposee would be difficult or impossible to detect. Other factors such as the drinks our poor non-smoker consumed while in the bar will potentially have far worse effects than the second-hand smoke they inhaled.

Why would the government, knowing there is no association between lung cancer and ETS exposure, continue to scare the public into believing there is? Why would Surgeon General Richard Carmona lie through his teeth with the statement, "The scientific evidence is now indisputable" when in fact, the evidence is highly disputed?

The answer is simple:
Money

If you knew the truth about ETS exposure, you would not voluntarily contribute your money to the government to continue funding their bogus studies.

Control

The federal government has taken the volumes of bogus data and used it to extend its reach into the private sector.

Jurisdiction

Based on false and misleading statistics we have allowed the courts and the government to intrude into our lives more than ever in our history.

Posted by, The REAL commonsenseemporia

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

emporians for" common" Sense otherwise know as (AKA) EMPORIAN'S FOR A MORE SOCIALISTIC SOCIETY have really gone overboard on the "COMMON" sense. They are saying, " We don't have the common sense to stay out of a smoking situation so we should throw away our constitution and the rights guarenteed by that old paper to protect us the poor old people who can't come in from the rain , (smoke)." Did you notice the word Estimated in the last post. Excuse me you commie tool! Until a reputable scientific test of my air quality in my private business is done and it is proven that my air quality is toxic to humans,, KEEP YOUR COMMIE DRIVAL TO YOURSELF! emporian's for common sense my a--.
Steve Corbin ,an American who is tired of this sh--

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I told you people this would come down to a health versus rights issue, it is now beginning. DON'T BUY IT, there has been no study of an Emporia business by the government, so their flawed statistics and Scientific studies DO NOT APPLY to Emporia Businesses. What has big government done for you lately except spend your great-grandchildrens future to regulate you even more. Do you really want to give up another right because some in society Can't or won't make their own choices

Posted by Steve Corbin, only one member of Emporia Open for Business , who by the way doesn't have to hide behind an anonymous posting.

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Over the past two decades, medical research has shown that non-smokers suffer many of the diseases of active smoking when they breathe secondhand smoke.
Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and contributes to the development of heart disease. Never smoking women who live with a smoker have a 91% greater risk of heart disease. They also have twice the risk of dying from lung cancer.
Never-smoking spouses who are exposed to secondhand smoke have about 20% higher death rates for both lung cancer and heart disease.
Secondhand smoke increases heart rate and shortens time to exhaustion. Repeated exposure causes thickening of the walls of the carotid arteries (accelerates atherosclerosis) and damages the lining of these arteries.
-- Posted By Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe they should be named;
"Emporians for Communist Sensiblities"
Steve

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Over the last two decades , studies have shown that Lab Rats die at a 98% faster rate then non-lab rats. Let's ban scientists.
Studies can show whatever the person paying for them wants. Johnson&Johnson ring a bell?

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WHO IS EXPOSED?

-->43% of kids (0-11) reportedly live in a home with a smoker
-->37% of non-smoking adults reportedly live with a smoker or regularly are exposed at work
-->88% of tested non-smokers have traces of ETS in their urine (Pirkle, et al. JAMA 1996:275:1233-40).

While the dosage of ETS as it relates to onset of disease is not precisely known, we desperately need to reduce the prevalence of ETS exposure.

HOW?
-->Smokefree Workplaces including restaurants and bars
-->Smokefree Public Spaces
-->Smokefree Apartments and Condominiums
-->Teach smokers about consequences for others

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nonsmoking individuals living with a heavy smoker have four times the risk of heart attack compared with those who live in smoke-free environments. (Stefanidis, et al., 1998).

Nonsmokers increase their risk of suffering a heart attack by 59% if they live with a smoking spouse. Risks are highest for men: nonsmoking husbands of smoking wives face a 92% increase in their risk for heart attack, compared with a 50% risk among the nonsmoking wives of smoking husbands (Stefanidis, et al., 1998).

There are approximately 37,000 nonsmoker deaths each year due to ETS-related heart disease. (Glantz & Parmley, 1991).

According to the available epidemiological evidence, there is a 30 percent increase in the risk of death from ischemic heart disease or myocardial infarction among nonsmokers who live with smokers (Glantz and Parmley, 1991).

Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") can cause damage to the cardiovascular system of young adults equivalent to damage caused by smoking a pack of cigarettes per day. (Celermajer, et al., 1996
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keep on bringing out the studies.
No matter what, stay calm and polite.
It won't matter, the people know better.
In the last two decades, NOT ONE STUDY was done in my building.
Therefore, they don't apply to me;)

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

THE BENEFITS OF QUITTING

-->Within 20 minutes of quitting - your blood pressure and pulse rate drop to normal and the temperature of your hands and feet increases to normal.
-->Within 8 hours of quitting - your carbon monoxide levels drop and your oxygen levels increase, both to normal levels.
-->Within 24 hours of quitting - your risk of a sudden heart attack decreases.
-->Within 48 hours of quitting - nerve endings begin to regenerate and your senses of smell and taste begin to return to normal.
-->Within 2 weeks to 3 months of quitting - your circulation improves and walking becomes easier; even your lung function increases up to 30%.
-->Within 1 to 9 months of quitting - your overall energy typically increases and symptoms like coughing, nasal congestion, fatigue, and shortness of breath diminish; also, the small hairlike projections lining your lower airways begin to function normally. This increases your lungs' ability to handle mucus, clean the airways, and reduce infections.
-->Within 1 year of quitting - your risk of coronary heart disease is half that of someone still using tobacco.
-->Within 5 years of quitting - the lung cancer death rate decreases by nearly 50% compared to one pack/day smokers; the risk of cancer of the mouth is half that of a tobacco user.
-->Within 10 years of quitting - your lung cancer death rate becomes similar to that of someone who never smoked; precancerous cells are replaced with normal cells; your risk of stroke is lowered, possibly to that of a nonuser; your risk of cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, bladder, kidney, and pancreas all go down.
--Posted By Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How many studies in the last two decades were done in Emporia? You know , Emporia Kansas? The founding city of Veterans Day.
Relevant facts please?
What business in Emporia has OSHA or the EPA shut down due to second hand smoke? Kansas dept of health? Any government agency? IN EMPORIA? You can spew your lists of studies all you want, we knew you would, but it still doesn't wash. The majority of Emporians are not as easily swayed into giving up their rights as our city commission was. Why not put your name out there so I know who I'm arguing with? I promise, no threats.
Steve Corbin

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The International Labour Organization estimates that at least 200 000 workers die every year due to exposure to smoke at work. The United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates that second-hand smoke is responsible for about 3000 lung cancer deaths annually among non-smokers in the country.
--Posted By Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by koach52 (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to admit......commonsense makes common sense. After watching weeks of this I lean toward the ban. I have watched all the arguements and I actually feel that the arguement has been won by those for the ban. Until the vote.....persuade me ....I will be watching.

Posted by koach52 (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way....there have been no studies on the long term effects of an atom bomb in Lyon County......however I am willing to bet that based on evidence elsewhere...it isn't healthy. No real need to see its effect here. I will buy in to the studies that have been done in other areas.

Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 11:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whoa Stev-o. Calm down before you stroke out. Course, when you do have a stroke, I'll bet you are not gonna wish you had been around even more SHS!

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 12:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay then Emporians for "Common" sense (I addressed the current definition of that term on another forum) find a solution for this.
I don't smoke, I don't live with a smoker and in an average week I spend 0 hours around SHS. I have my life arranged that way. If this ban takes effect, I will be exposed to MORE SHS than I currently am. Why? Because I enjoy walking. I like to walk along the main streets every summer evening I can. Commercial Street is a favorite of mine and up until now, all that deadly (by your account) SHS was confined inside of walls that I stayed out of. Now, thanks to your "salvation" I will have to walk through groups of smokers and clouds of SHS to get some good fresh air and unwind. Thank you ever so much.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 12:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"It is estimated that only 15% of cigarette smoke gets inhaled by the smoker. The remaining 85% lingers in the air for everyone to breathe."
Very scary---logically, more deaths are caused by SHS than first-hand smoke then...............................but wait.......................
"Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of disability and early death (after active smoking and alcohol) in the United States. For every eight smokers who die from smoking, one innocent bystander dies from secondhand smoke.
Soooo.......it is less dangerous than two other things--one of those being that 15% that the smoker actually inhales. Why, then is this a target instead of the other two? I keep asking this question, not to target the other two, but to illustrate the invalidity of the "health" claim. No one answers me--why not?

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 12:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Study after study after study. How many spouses living with a smoker are overweight? How many have diets? How many workers are exposed to chemicals causing long term effects? How many firefighters are exposed to smoke inhalation with lasting effects? How many people a year are affected with heart disease having never smoked?
Do we ban everything next? The simple fact is Everything around us can kill. Of all these stats how many people are exposed to fumes from cars and factories? Does this mean that the cause of disease is essentially shs?
How many people died last year from work related accidents? How about car accidents? Its funny how a car accident is a direct act caused by the driver, but smoking is alway a "related" cause. Its also convenient how the Term RISK is used.
Nonsmokers increase their risk of suffering a heart attack by 59% if they live with a smoking spouse. Risks are highest for men: nonsmoking husbands of smoking wives face a 92% increase in their risk for heart attack, compared with a 50% risk among the nonsmoking wives of smoking husbands (Stefanidis, et al., 1998).
Again, how many were overweight? How many exercised appropriately? Did they eat a balanced diet, or eat cheese by the block? What were their ages? Simply put you cant blame cigarettes for something as serious as a heart attack without considering all possible causes. Putting a servey out like this is a fear tactic. Can smoking cause sickness, yes. Can alkali and generate cause the same disease, yes. Before I'm questioned about it alkali and generate are used commonly at many manufacturers for cleanup purposes. Put simply answer the unanswered questions before trying to scare people.

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 12:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Weltha were not meant to direct any bad vibes toward you, sorry if it seemed that way.

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The California Environmental Protection Agency estimates that secondhand smoke exposure causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700–69,600 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States.
Posted By Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Each year in the United States, secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for 150,000–300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months. This results in 7,500–15,000 hospitalizations, annually.
--Posted By Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

koach52:

Let's say you just remodeled your household kitchen. Your wife is estatic, you put in all the latest kitchen gizmos and gadgets, along with granite countertops. You spent $30,000.00 but it was worth it . Everyone is happy. Then along comes a group appearing before you local commission with "studies" claiming that granite countertops release radon gas, (a known carcinigion into the air). To protect our citizens, & your children, the government bans the use of granite countertops in Emporia.
This ban is based on "studies" which are supposed to be scientific and yet the words ESTIMATED, COULD, MAY, MOST LIKELY, AND my personal favorite, POSSIBLY are used prolifically throught the "Study"
You are then REQUIRED to tear out your wifes kitchen countertops. What do you do?
Steve

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Secondhand smoke exposure among U.S. nonsmokers has declined substantially since the publication of the 1986 Surgeon General's Report on The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking.
-->Levels of a chemical called cotinine, a biomarker of secondhand smoke exposure, fell by 70% from 1988–1991 to 2001–2002.2
--.>The proportion of nonsmokers with detectable cotinine levels has been halved from 88% to 43%.2
-->However, more than 126 million nonsmoking Americans, including both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces.
--Posted By Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It sure is cold out there!

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

and windy too!

Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on January 15, 2009 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)

romano- Read my post again. I copied it below. I was agreeing with your post. Sorry if it didn't sound that way. One reason I hate this forum stuff and try like heck to stay out of it is, that you can't hear a persons tone while reading type. I was trying to say YUP!!! lol

romano- I understood your posts just fine. Then again I started reading them with open eyes and an open mind. I didn't start reading looking for more than was there just
to start an arguement.
Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 12:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Weltha were not meant to direct any bad vibes toward you, sorry if it seemed that way.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It sure is, Steve, and I am CRABBY!!

Emporian for some kind of sense:
So how many children does this ban affect? ZERO!!!! How many non-smoking spouses does this affect? ZERO!!!! That only leaves the non-smoking co-worker who made a choice to ACCEPT that job, knowing with the help of their sense of smell (we learned about the five senses and how to use them to make choices in first grade) that there was SHS present. Since they are also free to choose to sky-dive, bungee jump, ride four-wheelers, hang glide and a number of other risky things, why worry about this?
Oh, and since you find SHS so toxic, I should really take it personally that you are intending to poison me by pushing the smokers out into my "clean air Emporia." I don't think they will poison me, but you apparently do and that intent is all I would need in a court of law.................

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The right and the ability to make informed decisions about how we live our lives is one of the great things about this country. Many around the world do not have this fundemental right. I would like to see this country keep that right in place. Others do not see it that way. They need the government to make their decisions for them. I don't see it that way. Will we ever agree on this issue? Probably not. Will it go to a vote of the people? Most likely. Will we all abide by the results? Most will, some will not. What else can be said?
Steve

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

oooops,
someones copy& paste buttons stopped working!
Steve

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of disability and early death (after active smoking and alcohol) in the United States."
So what is next on the agenda? Alcohol? Firsthand smoke?
"Never-smoking spouses who are exposed to secondhand smoke have about 20% higher death rates for both lung cancer and heart disease."
"-->43% of kids (0-11) reportedly live in a home with a smoker
-->37% of non-smoking adults reportedly live with a smoker "
So what is next on the agenda? A ban in peoples homes and cars?
This ban doesn't begin to touch most of these statistics so if you think it will stop at this ban you are wrong. The only people that even argue and say this is the last ban freely admit that they only support the ban and have nothing to do with it. The people actually pushing the ban won't say this is the last thing on their agenda because they know that's not the case.

sheeple

A individual that forfeits their right to choose in favor of inclusion in group think and what is viewed as popular or elite group. Allowing the influences of different forms of media and group members to hold great sway in the formation of attitudes, behavior and opinion.
To accept the group mentality and opinion as fact without examination.
Not only to be told what to do, but accepting the paradigm of thought as absolute thereby removing the weight of personal responsibility in the making of decisions.

If you are bothered by having to take personal responsibility and making decisions, you might be sheeple.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Where's the studies on; toothpaste, use of anti-perspirant, hair gels, shampoos, conditioners, make up, and other personal hygiene products? Is there documentation in these studies showing how they narrowed the supposed cause down to tobacco use? We breath in many parts per million of air each day, show me how they singled out tobacco as being the most likely substance to be the cause cited in these studies.

What about all those chemicals and preservatives added to the foods we consume?

What about the chemicals used in fabrics?

What about the chemicals used in detergents and other laundry products?

Where's do the studies on air pollutants from factories and automobiles fit into the equation?

The number one cause of lung cancer is radon exposure. Where do you stand on that obsessedwithtobaccoemporia?

Posted by MatthewCook (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Common Sense,

One has to go beyond common sense- a higher rationality- in order to make sound public policy. The epidemiology of your studies 1.) are not presented here, and therefore are not "common sense" 2.) requires an extraordinary leap of faith in order for it to be applicable to what we are talking about in Emporia (catapulted by dismissal and refusal to respond) 3.) not contextual 4.) not conclusive given the litany of studies on the contrary (which i will not post now for brevity) and 5.) irrelevant, given most people's concession about the negative effects of smoking.

Posted by djdiablo (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

from our friend S. C. DIXON, with apologies to Merle Haggard, to the tune of OAKIE FROM MUSKOGEE

We don’t smoke tobacco in Emporia
The city council voted “no” on fun
Their lack of backbone alone is sure to bore ya,
But if you light up then we must call 9-1-1

Bobbi & Teresa just don’t like it.
They’re tryin’ to save us all from certain death,
So put away that match and don’t dare strike it…
They don’t like logic; please just save your breath.

The commissioners all seem to lack real gumption.
The mayor doesn’t seem to have a clue,
And so we have to live with the assumption
They still know what’s best for me and you.

And I'm proud to be smoke-free in Emporia.
And have some yahoo tell me what to do,
Next week they may just outlaw hot dogs,
Big Brother’s well & watchin’ out for you.

We’re lucky that we still have shirts and shoes and britches,
Someday they may take these away as well,
Till then those fair-haired sons-of-witches,
Can take it up with Satan down in hell.

See we’ve given up our right to make decisions,
& freedom doesn’t live here anymore.
If you wanna a puff a smoke please do it outside,
But stand at least ten feet from our door,

Put away your Marlboro and your Zippo,
Put away your Kent and your Pell-Mell,
And when the time comes for you to cast a ballot,
Tell Jim-Bo you will smoke his butt in Hell.

And I'm proud to see tobacco-free Emporia
And have my business run into the ground,
They’ll gladly do all your thinking’ for ya
Cause Emporia’s still a narrow-minded town,
(a knee-jerk, piss-ant, one-horse kinda town…)

Posted by MatthewCook (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A study by New York Health Department concluded that the result of an Anti-Smoking Law was an 8% drop in heart attacks between 2003 and 2004, based on the number of admittances to hospitals.

But Wired.com went further, begging the question "are numbers always conclusive?". To most readers who use common sense, a number and a department are iron-clad proof of an instance. But anyone who wishes more out of journalism, knows that correlation and cause are not synonymous.

The Wired article indicates that similar fluctuations in admittances occurred in years BEFORE anti-smoking laws went into affect, and that heart attacks are not inherently linked to second hand smoke. In fact, the NYHD study neglected to mention that strokes did NOT decrease in the same period (a condition linked more to smoking than even heart attacks).

What this all means is not that smoking is GOOD, but that the statistics and numbers thrown at an average citizen mean nothing out of context. Unless "common sense" wants to investigate further or at least provide reports that give logically deductive reasoning, then all you have in front of you are digits and percentages. nothing more.

(here's the wired article. http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/...)

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Matt,

Great article! Thanks for posting. We KNOW second-hand smoke isn't good for you! It cannot be any easier than this! If it bothers you, do go there, MAN! All we are asking for is a little common sense, and yet there are those in Emporia who think that know better than we do. This is my inherent problem with the ban. (not to mention the way it was passed by our joke of a city government)

Here's a question I have for Matt Zimmerman or a member of the CAE...Why wasn't I invited to the meetings between CAE and bar owners? You remember, the "compromise" meetings that all the other bar owners walked out of, because the level of BS had reached record levels.

Is Blaise Plummer (the City Attorney) really a member of Emporian's for Drug Awareness? If so, no wonder this went through so fast!

This whole thing, to me, REEKS of small town politics. I won't be voting for any commissioner who voted for this ban.

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent).

Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent .

Some research suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults, and leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children. Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Forgot the tagline...
--Posted By Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

■There is no safe amount of secondhand smoke. Breathing even a little secondhand smoke can be dangerous.
■Breathing secondhand smoke is a known cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Children are also more likely to have lung problems, ear infections, and severe asthma from being around smoke.
■Secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer.
■Separate “no smoking” sections DO NOT protect you from secondhand smoke. Neither does filtering the air or opening a window.
■Many states and communities have passed laws making workplaces, public places, restaurants, and bars smoke-free. But millions of children and adults still breathe secondhand smoke in their homes, cars, workplaces, and in public places.
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey someone got their cut and paste buttons working again.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In the post above it was stated "some studies suggest"
Everyone look up the definition of "SUGGEST" please?
Steve

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"■Many states and communities have passed laws making workplaces, public places, restaurants, and bars smoke-free. But millions of children and adults still breathe secondhand smoke in their homes, cars, workplaces, and in public places."
"The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent"

Again this ban doesn't cover most of this so it is either irrelevant or you are laying the ground work for the next ban. I know I sound like an anarchist that wants nothing regulated but I'm not. I just don't see how this ban addresses most issues with shs. If you are a true believer in the dangers of second hand smoke wouldn't the next logical step be more bans that do address the other issues?
"Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of disability and early death (after active smoking and alcohol) in the United States." Wouldn't it also be logical to ban first hand smoke and alcohol?

Posted by the person it says it's posted by above the post who is now wasting time typing something that shouldn't need to be typed because anybody who is readying this can just lift their head a smidge and see who it's posted by.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Crack,

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to tell me second hand smoke is bad for you?

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

crack
Thanks for the civil reply. You made a good point which I have always agreed with. That being, education on shs is a very good thing and it is being done A LOT. That is one reason I feel this ban is pretty unnecessary. The current tactics by the anti-tobacco lobby are working without the bans. I am proof of that. I quit smoking over 12 years ago. The problem I see is that this ban goes too far and steps on too many toes.

Since the information was provide that alcohol is a bigger killer than shs does that sway your opinion on drinking any? Just curious? Maybe that info steps a little too close to your toes.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh yeah I forgot to post that I was posting.
Sorry everyone. Here ya go.

Posted by the person it says it's posted by above the post who is now wasting time typing something that shouldn't need to be typed because anybody who is readying this can just lift their head a smidge and see who it's posted by.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CAE, commonsenseemporia, crackinsack,
The following comes straight from the EPA websit,
"Radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers, according to EPA estimates. Overall, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Radon is responsible for about 21,000 lung cancer deaths every year."
So why are you not banning breathing RADON, along with the smoking ban ?
Or isn't RADON a health issue ?

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is it me or is commonsense just posting for the sake of posting? I have no real problems with anyone here, sorry if it seems otherwise. But I like to debate, and common isn't really debating as much as quoting. Does common have anything to say that didn't come from the A.L.A?

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Crack,

If SHS is such a real problem, why not ban cigarettes instead of banning places where you can smoke them? That's why this ban to me doesn't make any sense. If cigarettes are SO bad, and SHS is SO bad, why are you banning SHS and not the cigarette itself. Banning SHS and not cigarettes doesn't make a lick a sense, sweetheart.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

crackinsack,
Did you not understand my post, well here is part of it again.
"Radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers, according to EPA estimates."
You see, if you understand the statement Radon is the number ONE cause of lung cancer in NON-SMOKERS, not cigarette smoke or SHS.
As for RADON I can post statistics on where the higher concentrations of RADON occur and it will suprise even someone such as yourself and it may give you something to think about. However it probably wouldn't do any good, because you are all knowing and wise !

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If any of the people who are against a smoking ban, think that my posts are hurting our cause, then I will refrain from any more posts.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

crackinsak,
in reply to your above "my coughing indicates I have respiratory problems" you are right on correct. It may also 'Indicate" I was exposed to agent orange in Viet Nam. Only I and the V.A. know for sure, and we're not even sure. There were a couple of other adverbs in that defanition besides indicate.
Steve

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and methusla;
Nothing you or anyone else says or does on these posts or in the public domain will or could hurt the cause, except maybe beaking the law. This is exactly our cause, the right to choose, the freedom to choose, the freedom of disagreeing with each other and not being jailed for it, the freedoms given to us by our founding fathers. I don't know who gave you that idea, but bullsh--t. You keep on blogging, stating your opinion, keep on irritaiting crackhead, keep on keeping on. I expect to see your post on here till one of us goes to their maker.
Steve

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

commonsenseemporia pasted:

"Blah blah blah blah."

I reply:

Currently, we all have the freedom to exercise our individual rights. We may all choose whether or not to enter an establishment that allows smoking.

The ban takes that right away from everyone.

When we take individual rights away from citizens, nobody wins.

Posted by wyse_guy (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We live in the communist city of Emporia they want to take all of our rights away.Next thing you know they will make you kneel before them at the town meetings.Trying to tell us how to live our lives the way they see fit.Wait till crack takes over the county you wont even be able to go for a sunday drive.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

crackinsack- You and others make such a point to say that smoking and SHS is the main cause of lung cancer. My point is and was that is simply not true as I have proven.
You and others also state numerous so called sceintific facts that smoking causes heart disease, etc., but everything I have read on the subject only states that smoking and SHS is the main contributing factor to heart disease and cancer. As I read and understand this statement, smoking is the main CONTRIBUTING factor, which means that smoking and SHS is not the sole cause of heart disease and cancer, as you and others would have people believe.
As near as I can tell from my research there is no definate statement from any research organization that says smoking or SHS is the absolute sole cause of certain diseases, such as heart disease, lung disease, etc.. The findings have nearly always been accompanied by a statement stating that other factors, such as excersize, diet, etc., must also be considered as contributing factors in causing heart disease, cancer, diabetes, stroke, etc..
For every fact you can state that smoking and SHS causes certain diseases. There are just as many sceintific studies and facts that state smoking and SHS are not the sole cause of heart disease, lung disease, etc..
.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

way to go, Mr.O
So short, So sweet,
Don't know how any RATIONAL person can argue with your post .
Steve

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course that means crack, oleboy and communist sense will be replying forth with
Steve

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Twenty-three states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Utah, and Vermont – as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have passed laws prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars.
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 11:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.14
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on January 16, 2009 at 11:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is interesting how common sense post strictly information, and gets labeled a communist (with a small c, no less), while are dear buddy Steve slings muck in the form of miss-guided rhetoric and expects us to buy it.
For what it is worth, I Googled a few of common sense's posts. It is interesting where they are found. Try it.
How is that stroke working for you, Stev-o?

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 1:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How many of the studied heart attack victims had family histories of heart conditions?

Twenty-three states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Utah, and Vermont – as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have passed laws prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars.

Imagine that, the majority of the listed states also voted for Obama.

Posted by Pingeon (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 6:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I find it interesting how communistsense (Teresa) posts only facts as well and will not answer anybody's questions. That is dictator thinking at it's finest. "Here is what you will do and I don't care what you think about it."

Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And I find it interesting that someone who posts only information, and makes no personal attacks, gets most of you so riled up that you resort to name-calling and other juvenile habits. You need to sit back and chill. As my platoon leader used to say, "Smoke 'em if you got 'em." For those of you who don't smoke, just head on down to Stev-o's place and breath deeply. On the nicotine you are craving is right there in the air--free of charge.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Irishinemporia;
I am recovering just fine, thanks for asking. The doctors say I will be afflicted with Terwal-bosaud syndrome whose symptoms are a constant pain in the a--.

As far as communist sense,(small c intended), and their postings; I already have a copy of their presentation book, (over 1&1/2 inches thick) that they presented to the city commission at the beginning of this fiasco, so I don't need to see every page copy&pasted here again, although it is their right to do so. There are no personal comments, no debate, no name calling, where's the fun in that?
I might also ask you what about my postings are "miss-guided" rhetoric or muck? I really don't expect anyone to "BUY" my point of view on this. You see someone else "SOLD" their point of view already.
Your good friend,
Steve Corbin

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Most people assume that they must be exposed to secondhand smoke for a long time before it can actually cause harm, but this is not true.

According to the Centers for Disease Control:
-->Just five minutes of exposure stiffens the aorta as much as smoking a cigarette.
-->Twenty minutes of exposure is equal to smoking a pack a day, for it activates blood platelets involved in the clotting process and increases the risk of heart attack.
-->Thirty minutes of exposure causes stiffened, clogged arteries and compromises the blood’s ability to manage LDL (“bad”) cholesterol.
-->Two hours of exposure can speed up the heart rate and reduce heart rate variability, increasing the chance of an irregular heart beat (arrhythmia) that can itself be fatal or trigger a heart attack.

These health effects can take as long as 48 hours to reverse themselves. All of these effects increase the long-term risk of heart disease and the immediate risk of heart attack.

A study from the University of California at San Francisco showed disturbing results as well: After being exposed to 15 cigarettes in a closed room for one hour, even healthy men experienced stiffness of the aortic arteries – some after only four minutes.
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I would like to expand on irishemporia's invite to my bar.

If you are a non-smoker and you're not scared to death by 2nd hand smoke come on down & enjoy the nicotine in the air, (you don't have to pay Johnson&Johnson for the patch.)

If you are a non-smoker & smoke bothers you , don't open the door.

Steve Corbin

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy ""People do have to get to work, however its only necessary for a small amount to Drive to work.""

You go from this to:

" Cars are used more than is necessary"

I dont see the complication. I'll break it down, I'm typing slow since apparently you dont read fast. Everybody needs to get to work, not everyone needs to drive to get there. Take a walk, a run, ride a bike, get some exercise. Cars are used more than necessary, just because it gets you there quicker doesn't mean you need to use it.
I'd say that one statement explains the other. Not everyone needs to drive just to get to work, ergo cars are used more than is necessary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read fine you just backpeddled from:

"People do have to get to work, however its only necessary for a small amount to Drive to work.""

to:

" Cars are used more than is necessary"

Work is necessary, it is what drives our nation, using a vehicle to get to work is a necessary evil until clean fuels come of age, not everyone lives in walking or cycling range of their employer. Now, seeing that your first statement holds no water whatsoever(what is the % of this small amount), enlighten me as to how the second is to be understood. What is your threshold there? You make broad sweeping statements and change them to suit your liking when questioned about it, sorry played enough ball to know a backpeddle when I see it.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You know, I am really amazed at the level of maturity here, commonsenseemporia attacked no one, provided data to support their cause almost everyone here with the exception of MatthewClark just resorts to name calling and general juvenile rhetoric. Instead of acting like kids, post some data to contradict it, instead of branding someone a communist, that bit got old in the 60's, get some new material.

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess since it's ok some to just copy and paste over and over and over, it should be ok for me to do the same. So for every copy and paste job nonsenseemporia posts, I will respond in kind:

commonsenseemporia pasted:

"Blah blah blah blah."

I reply:

Currently, we all have the freedom to exercise our individual rights. We may all choose whether or not to enter an establishment that allows smoking.

The ban takes that right away from everyone.

When we take individual rights away from citizens, nobody wins.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy; are you really?

When someone or some group decides to attack my rights, my business, and my livelyhood, I will not stand by & be a goodoleboy. I don't think you would either. You had better believe I will attack back any way I can. You think it's personal now?

We still have plenty of time to get down in the dirt.

communistsense is not posting anything, she is copy&pasting a slew of disputed factoids that have been pasted&posted before. Maturity, juvenile,rhetoric, communist are all lables. Label me what you want, I'm fighting for my livelyhood ,so please don't expect me to be polite and/or forgiving to those who brought this fight on.
Steve Corbin

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

inbetween spewing all my rhetoric, we have verified another 100 signatures and still haven't had all the sheets turned in from the carriers yet. There is a fact for you all.
Steve

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So dispute them and diprove them instead of slinging lables, converting people to your cause is a lot easier when present yourself in a credible fashion.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Currently, we all have the freedom to exercise our individual rights. We may all choose whether or not to enter an establishment that allows smoking.

The ban takes that right away from everyone.

When we take individual rights away from citizens, nobody wins."

Let me clarify this for you. Currently you have the right to enter a business, and said business dictates whether or not and where you can smoke. You are making your choice based upon what the business offers; fair enough that is a choice not a right but in a sense the business is making those choices, not you.

I can empathize a bit with the anti ban folks from a business perspective, but this is not an individual rights issue and never has been, it's a business rights issue. No one ever said you couldn’t smoke, just where it is permitted, which is no different than it currently is now. If it was an individual issue you should be complaining about your rights to smoke wherever you choose, but therein lays the problem, there is no right to smoke.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"■Many states and communities have passed laws making workplaces, public places, restaurants, and bars smoke-free. But millions of children and adults still breathe secondhand smoke in their homes, cars, workplaces, and in public places."
"The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent"

Again this ban doesn't cover most of this so it is either irrelevant or you are laying the ground work for the next ban. I know I sound like an anarchist that wants nothing regulated but I'm not. I just don't see how this ban addresses most issues with shs. If you are a true believer in the dangers of second hand smoke wouldn't the next logical step be more bans that do address the other issues?
"Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of disability and early death (after active smoking and alcohol) in the United States." Wouldn't it also be logical to ban first hand smoke and alcohol?

My copy and paste button works too and I'd seriously like these questions answered. Most of the stats being posted by the lovely individual aren't even covered by this ban so why would anyone assume that the bans will stop at just this one? I truly believe that the "big government party" overwhelmingly defeating the other party in state and federal elections has emboldened people with this kind of thinking and we are going to see a lot more of this kind of stuff. I hope I'm wrong but we will see. 233 years is a good run for a free democracy. I wish it could last a little longer but oh well what do you do.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For those of you who want to ban all activitys that may be unhealty for you or the public in general, here is some information that may be of interest, go to the following website, http://burningissues.org/pdfs/WoodSmokeC......

As you can see, burning wood in your fireplace, etc., is just as hazardous to public health as cigarette smoke. So why don't you propose a ban on the burning of wood in fireplaces, etc.
Here is another web address that may be of interest to ban supporters and opponents alike,
http://burningissues.org/ws-more-damage.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry for the error, the web address should be as follows,
http://burningissues.org/ws-more-damage-...
http://burningissues.org/pdfs/WoodSmokeC...

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As the body of scientific evidence becomes larger and more precise, it is now possible to prove that smokefree policies not only work to protect nonsmokers from the death and disease caused by exposure to secondhand smoke, but also have an immediate effect on the public's health . On a larger scale, a study has confirmed that restaurants and bars located in smokefree cities have 82% less indoor air pollution than restaurants and bars in cities that do not have smokefree protection. Because of the mountain of evidence from these peer-reviewed, scientific studies, the Centers for Disease Control recently issued a warning for anyone at risk for heart disease to avoid smoke-filled indoor environments completely.
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

GoodOleBoy: you ought to know by now how Stev-o and his buddies play the game. If they can't attack the message, they attack the messenger. It is Kindergarten War Tactics 101.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I truly believe that the "big government party" overwhelmingly defeating the other party in state and federal elections has emboldened people with this kind of thinking and we are going to see a lot more of this kind of stuff. I hope I'm wrong but we will see. 233 years is a good run for a free democracy. I wish it could last a little longer but oh well what do you do."

FYI

Fact: We lost more freedoms over the last 8 years to the "keep government small party"

See, The Patriot Act

Fact: The "keep government small party" came in and shoved "No Child Left Behind" down every state's throat, then underfunded it, turning it into an epic failure. Again Federal govenment dictating state matters.

Shall I go on? There is no small or big government anymore, just government. Were you as vocal about the above matters as this dinky little smoking ban? Yep can't smoke in a bar, RIP democracy.

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

irishemporia and goodolboy, by posting things like
"you ought to know by now how Stev-o and his buddies play the game. If they can't attack the message, they attack the messenger. It is Kindergarten War Tactics 101."
AND
"I am really amazed at the level of maturity here"
"everyone here with the exception of MatthewClark just resorts to name calling and general juvenile rhetoric. Instead of acting like kids, post some data to contradict it"

PUTS YOU IN THE SAME BOAT AS EVERYBODY ELSE!
Get off your high horse!
you telling everyone how they act like children, are not mature and post only rhetoric is the same damn thing!
Who do you think you are to say others opinions are not good enough just because YOU dont like the way they respond to things. Sounds like you all think you are somehow Better than the rest, But thats just my opinion, childish as it may be.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Go through my posts above, show me where I called someone a communist or worse because I disagreed with them. I have kept a civil tone throughout this thread. When things deteriorate to the point people resort to labeling and name calling your darn right I will question that kind of behavior, what was that old saying? Act your age?

I welcome some solid arguments backed up with fact, and when one is championing a cause resorting to name calling and labeling is almost always a last desperate act.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The last time I looked communist was a word used to describe ones political leanings. Perhaps communist was the wrong word. The definition of Fascism seems more appropriate.

Fascism is sometimes defined as an open terror-based dictatorship which is reactionary in that it makes policy based on current circumstances rather than creating polices to prevent problems, piles lies and misnomers on top of more lies until the truth becomes indistinguishable, revised, or forgotten.

Judging by goodoleboys posts about our political system and the government (patriot act) he thinks we are already there.
I think there is still hope, even if only on a small scale such as this smoking ban.
Steve

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Irish and GoodOleBoy,

Don't criticize how we "play the game." Keep in mind just who exactly started the game. This was forced on me, I don't like it at all, and now its going to be up to the public to decide in April.

Steve, got another full sheet at the bar, I'll bring it down later today.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Seems to me that the ban advocates have been attacking and calling people names from the outset of this ban.
If banning or restricting someone from doing something, such as smoking, in a certain place or restricting or banning a business owner from the ability to run his business as he, as the owner of that business sees fit to do, is not an attack upon certain individuals and businesses, then just exactly what should it be called. And you irishemporia have some large cojones, to accuse any one of personal attacks and some name calling, since you have been as guilty as anyone of personal attacks and some name calling, talk about being Kindergartenish and immature.
The very idea of making someone who happens to smoke, just because you don't like it, be required or forced to leave a business establishment and stand or sit out side in all sorts of weather conditions, just to accomodate a bunch of spoiled so called intelligent adults, who can't make an intelligent choice on their own, is degrading and discriminates against those who will have to leave the comfort of a building and be foced to stand or sit in an alley, parking lot, sidewalk, or street and be 10 or 20 feet from the door or window.
I have said numerous times this smoking ban as it is written is the most discriminating piece law I have seen in a long time.
If you don't have any idea of the definition of "discrimination" here it is.
a. partiality, or bias, in the treatment of a person or group, which is unfair, illegal, etc.
b. an act, policy, pattern of behavior, etc. characterized by such partiality
The no smoking or smoking allowed law that is or was in effect in Emporia was not unfair or discriminate against anyone. It gave all intelligent, thinking adults the fair choice to choose what to do. Also it did not force business owners to pick and choose which of their customers to choose to allow to stay in their business.
You smoking ban advocates will say and have said that the old smoking law was unfair to you. Just exactly how was it unfair to you. You were not forced to enter or stay in a place that allowed smoking, it didn't force you to stay outside 10 or 20 feet from a door or window or stand in the alley or sidewalk or parking lot in all kinds of weather, you aall have numerous non-smoking establishments to choose from to go and socialize, eat, drink, etc. without having to complain or worry about the smoke.
I don't believe that you can truthfully say that you have been forced, unnecessarily, to do anything you did not have the choice to do.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FYI

Fact: We lost more freedoms over the last 8 years to the "keep government small party"

See, The Patriot Act

Fact: The "keep government small party" came in and shoved "No Child Left Behind" down every state's throat, then underfunded it, turning it into an epic failure. Again Federal govenment dictating state matters.

Shall I go on? There is no small or big government anymore, just government. Were you as vocal about the above matters as this dinky little smoking ban? Yep can't smoke in a bar, RIP democracy.

I wasn't defending Republicans or their policies I was just pointing out why I believe these socialist agendas are going to be pushed harder now. The socialists have won a huge victory and are all pumped up. I'm not saying all Democrats are socialists it's just that that is the party the socialists identify them selves with so they feel as if things are going their way. They feel emboldened.

The third party I voted for was in fact against the things you mentioned above so in fact I was as vocal about those things. I voted against both "recognized" partys. I will vote against this ban to. I really wish people would stop thinking in only one of two ways. Either Democrat or Republican. If I criticize one it's just assumed I'm the other when in fact I am neither. I have criticized the republicans less because their seems to be quite enough people doing that already. I've often been accused of defending Bush when in fact I was just attacking the ludicrous notion that the one man that is GW Bush is personally responsible for absolutely everything bad that has happened in the last eight years. You want to talk about some lazy ignorant thinking there you go...................Wait you got me off topic. Dang it!

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Matt;
You know every name counts, and I am honestly beginning to think freedom loving Emporian's will prevail in April.

I had two more 80 +year old non-smokers come in this morning while I was doing the books. Boy they were fired up about this ban.

I guess we business owners were just supposed to roll over and accept this ban, and the loss of our feedoms. Did they really think that would happen?
And I can't understand goodboys posts, in 1 he says the anti-ban people, (well me), act childish and resort to name calling,for opposing big government and in his next post he is bashing big government. I don't know if he stands against government bans or bans, or just government. Oh well.
Steve

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. standard-setting body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to completely control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.

Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.

Operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Commonsense,

Are you a member of Clean Air Emporia or Emporians for Drug Awareness?

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not hard to understand at all, people make statements like 'this is the end of democracy" in reguards to this ban, when in fact they lost a hell of lot more a few years back yet Lyon County went red again. Take away your some of your rights to privacy that is OK, ban smoking in bars, "I'm fired up about it". Query my posts, I have always said that this should come to a vote, and if it passes it is not the will of few being imposed on the many, it is good old fashioned majority rules democracy. Sadly I cannot be a part of it all since I reside outside the city limits.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"to accuse any one of personal attacks and some name calling, since you have been as guilty as anyone of personal attacks and some name calling, talk about being Kindergartenish and immature. "

Show me where I am the instigator in a personal attack, love to see it.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Apparently you missed my last post oleboy. I didn't say that loosing rights to privacy was OK with me. I just couldn't really do any thing about the Patriot Act except vote in a way that sends a message to the GOP that they need to rethink their policies and not do things that sound like they come from the far left. However with this local ban I feel I can do more than just vote. I have talked to everyone I can who I know will be able to vote on this and encouraged them to do so. Most but not all of them have told me that they feel as I do that this ban is unnecessary and was brought about in less than kosher ways. Maybe they are just telling me what they think I want to hear but I doubt that as I'm not the kind of person that makes people feel they need to lie to me to impress me(I'm ACTUALLY just a good ole boy with grease under my fingernails- the ones I have left anyway) so I'm pretty sure they were being honest. I don't see what is so wrong with doing what I can when I can while I still can.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Was not pointing the finger at just you(apologies if it felt that way), I have seen much of same come from other people. It just makes me flat out sad to see people get so fired up about smoking when far greater things have transpired, yet no one seems concerned. I do think however that you need to consider revising your thoughts on bigger things such as the Patriot Act, the same people you talk to will likely vote in the national elections as they would local, it makes a difference. Look at the MN senate race, who would have thought?

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A 19-year-old woman shows up for work at a smoke-filled Michigan bar, appearing both healthy and happy. She's worked there without incident for several months. Fifteen minutes later, she collapses and dies within minutes of that.

A mystery?

No. An autopsy showed the woman died of a severe asthma attack. Dr. Ken Rosenman, a professor of medicine and chief of the division of occupational and environmental medicine at Michigan State University's College of Medicine, said the death is directly linked to the secondhand smoke in her workplace.

He published his findings this month in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, making it what is believed to be the first documented link of secondhand smoke to an asthma-related death in an adult, Rosenman said.
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No offense goodoleboy, but what could we do about the Patriot Act, those that did voice out against it weren't listened to anyway. And those were the people who could have made a difference. I didn't like that it passed, I actually wrote in letters, emails, even tried to complain on the phone. In the end I got the same answer, thanks for calling, writing , ect.
The reason we are so fired up here is because this is something we can fight against, for the moment.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

commensenseemporia- Since you brought up the (ASHRAE), do you not believe that since one of the City Commissioners is connected to a HVAC business in Emporia this particular commissioner should have recused himself from voting on a smoking ban seeing as there may be a connection to AHRAE and therefore a possible conflict of interest !
Just asking !
Also did the 19 year old that died from an asthma attack have a predisposition to asthma and didn't realize it, or possibly some other pre-existing condition. Do you or the doctor have all the facts about pre-existing conditions. I am sorry but it sounds like you may be trying to employ a scare tactic, maybe !
Again, just asking ! Because I have chronic bronchitis, asthma, pulmonary fibrosis and smoked filled bars etc. do not bother me terribly.

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CAE using scare tactics? Come on Methusla now what have we been told about thinking for ourselves?

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey folks lets try a new link

www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=...

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No offense goodoleboy, but what could we do about the Patriot Act, those that did voice out against it weren't listened to anyway. And those were the people who could have made a difference. I didn't like that it passed, I actually wrote in letters, emails, even tried to complain on the phone. In the end I got the same answer, thanks for calling, writing , ect.
The reason we are so fired up here is because this is something we can fight against, for the moment.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps speak out and try to convince the people of this county to not reelect Bush in 2004? That would have been a start, that is awesome that you did what you did, and I applaud you for it, I just wish the enthusiaism was contagious.

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh i tried to tell everyone that I agreed with the president in south america that Bush was and is the devil. lol. How he got reelected is beyond me, but I tried to convince everyone I saw not to vote for him. The argument was pretty one sided since I only found 1 person who wanted to reelect him. Again how he won is beyond me.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe if them Democrats would have had a candidate in 04 they could have beat Bush but Kerry had no substance at all. This is why we need more choices than two. Do I mourn the loss of democracy because of this smoking ban? No but it is a sign of the times. We are basically down to one party unless the Republicans get their heads out. "Let's see who am I going to vote for the Democrat or the......... Democrat?" Doesn't look like a Democracy to me.

Anyway back to the topic of what's next on the agenda. Following is something I have posted at least two other times and the questions remain unanswered. If this ban is logical wouldn't it be logical to implement more bans until all these unhealthy things are banned? It is obvious that the ban people don't respect the boundaries of personal property like a bar or restaurant why should we believe they would respect personal property like homes and cars. Their statistics keep bringing up were people live so why wouldn't they also want to take their "health crusade" there? Alcohol is above shs on their lists so why wouldn't it also be on their agenda?

"■Many states and communities have passed laws making workplaces, public places, restaurants, and bars smoke-free. But millions of children and adults still breathe secondhand smoke in their homes, cars, workplaces, and in public places."
"The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent"

Again this ban doesn't cover most of this so it is either irrelevant or you are laying the ground work for the next ban. I know I sound like an anarchist that wants nothing regulated but I'm not. I just don't see how this ban addresses most issues with shs. If you are a true believer in the dangers of second hand smoke wouldn't the next logical step be more bans that do address the other issues?
"Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of disability and early death (after active smoking and alcohol) in the United States." Wouldn't it also be logical to ban first hand smoke and alcohol?

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The California Smoke-Free Workplace Law went into effect in restaurants in 1995 and in bars in 1998.

-->Final Taxable Sales Figures from the California Board of Equalization for 1997 showed annual taxable sales reported by owners of establishments that sold beer and wine were $7.16 billion dollars for that year. In 1998 sales increased to $7.6 billion dollars and by the end of 1999 they had jumped to $8.27 billion dollars. (California Board of Equalization, November 1999)

-->Final Taxable Sales Figures for establishments selling all types of liquor were $8.6 billion dollars in 1997, before the smoke-free bar law went into effect. After the law went into effect, annual taxable sales for establishments selling all types of liquor increased to $9.08 billion dollars for 1998 and increased again to $9.82 billion dollars for 1999. (California Board of Equalization, Aug. 2000)

-->This upward trend continued into 2000 with annual taxable sales for the entire "eating and drinking group" increasing during the first quarter of 2000 over 1999 sales by 9.8%. (California Board of Equalization, March 2000)

-->Sales tax data showed that an additional $879,816,000 in sales were made in California’s beer, wine and liquor serving establishments during 1998 as compared to 1997 - after the California Smoke-free Workplace Law went into effect for bars. (California Board of Equalization, November 1999)

-->The rate of growth in beer, wine and liquor serving establishments outpaced all retail outlet taxable sales in 1998, compared to 1997 by 7.7 %. (California Board of Equalization, November 1999)

-->A study by the University of California, San Francisco of bar revenue data provided by the California Board of Equalization concluded that: “As with claims of adverse effects on restaurant and tourist industries, these data further discredit tobacco industry claims that smoke-free bar laws are bad for the bar business. Quite the contrary, these laws appear to be good for business.” (Institute for Health Policy Studies, Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, 1998)

-->Increased bar revenue is not a surprise because 88.7% of Californians agree that all indoor work sites should be smoke-free. (1997, California Adult Tobacco Survey, CDHS)
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

o.k. THE LAST TWO POSTS BY COMICALSENSE EMPORIA ARE OUTRIGHT FABRICATIONS.

In the 1st post a young woman drops dead from a asthma attack and the doctor named attributes it to 2nd hand smoke.
No scientific data, but they did show the girl knew she had asthma and wasn't taking the prescribed medicine for it. Also 1 of the doctors esteemed collegues argued the 1 death was not sufficient to prove causallity.

2nd post: The studies shown were for bars with resturants, not just bars. Also the years of the study show an overall increase in consumer spending on entertainment and dining nationwide.
So?
Is this another case of scare tatctics?
YOU DECIDE!

THAT'S WHAT THIS VOTE IS ABOUT!
Steve-o

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"A 19-year-old woman shows up for work at a smoke-filled Michigan bar, appearing both healthy and happy. She's worked there without incident for several months. Fifteen minutes later, she collapses and dies within minutes of that.
A mystery?
No. An autopsy showed the woman died of a severe asthma attack. Dr. Ken Rosenman, a professor of medicine and chief of the division of occupational and environmental medicine at Michigan State University's College of Medicine, said the death is directly linked to the secondhand smoke in her workplace."

So what? There are some people out there that have a predisposition to adverse lung health to very specific triggers but are otherwise healthy. For a family member of my own, it was to very specific molds and mildews in very specific places. Fortunately, it was not fatal in this case, but it could have been--bottom line, there was no way of knowing until exposure had occurred. This isolated incident proves nothing more than medical anomalies

".Increased bar revenue is not a surprise because 88.7% of Californians agree that all indoor work sites should be smoke-free. (1997, California Adult Tobacco Survey, CDHS)"

So, what you're saying, is that, unlike us, the Californians had some kind of say in what the state would do?
Does anyone else get the feeling that we are supposed to be looking into a spinning black and white spiral when we read this stuff?

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy;

I , much like you, cannot believe what has happened to this country because of government, big or small. The erosion of our rights and liberties in the last decade are cause for concerne for all of us. I am not fighting for smokers rights, it's everyones rights that concern me.

An Example: While at a local printing shop I was getting voter registration forms copied, one of the employees asked me, "Wasn't there just a presidential election, Do you mean people didn't vote for president but they want to register to vote against the smoking ban?" I tried to think about that one for a minute and finally told her what I thought the reasoning was.
For so long a lot of people have felt they have no say in government, especially the state or federal government.Their voices were not heard or disregarded. However when hit with a local issue such as this ban, they felt they might be able to sound off, (so to speak). All politics are local. Maybe they will get out and vote and enjoy the feeling of exercising one of their rights so much they will continue to become involved in their city, state, and federal government desicions. That is what I'm hoping for.
Steve-o

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof;

YOU ARE GETTING SLEEPY, VERY SLEEPY. YOUR POST WAS GREAT.
STEVE

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

josiesbar,

Matt , rumor has it that commsn*&$^%/ oh hell whoever is a paid college intern working for CAE/EDA. I'd put a pack of smokes on it.
Steve-o , kind a like the new nickname;)

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The 2006 Surgeon General's Report on The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke concluded that SHS causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults.1 The report also concluded that no level of SHS exposure is risk free and that only completely smoke-free environments fully protect nonsmokers from SHS exposure.1 States, communities, employers, business proprietors, and the public are acting on this information to reduce SHS exposure. The American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation estimates that, as of April 2008, 33% of US residents have been living under state or local laws that make worksites, restaurants, and bars completely smoke-free, and 64% of US residents have been living under state or local laws making at least one of these three settings smoke-free.9 Largely because of the trend toward increased protection by state and local smoke-free laws and voluntary policies covering worksites and public places, SHS exposure among US nonsmokers has decreased substantially since 1988.10 The trends in the adoption of state smoking restrictions described in this report suggest that the national health objective of establishing laws making indoor public places and worksites smoke-free in all states by the year 2010 might be achievable.
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rbow
Great post! this truly is a rare opportunity to be active and effective in a government decision even if it is just a small town ban. It is sad that there are those that oppose our efforts simply because they don't like the inconvenience of avoiding the very few places that still allow smoking.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Look out Americans, ONLY 1 YEAR LEFT!

The trends in the adoption of state smoking restrictions described in this report suggest that the national health objective of establishing laws making indoor public places and worksites smoke-free in all states by the year 2010 might be achievable.
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

You had better get out and vote this one down!
Steve-o

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

commonsenseemporia pasted:

"Blah blah blah blah."

I reply:

Currently, we all have the freedom to exercise our individual rights. We may all choose whether or not to enter an establishment that allows smoking.

The ban takes that right away from everyone.

When we take individual rights away from citizens, nobody wins.

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If half the nonsense commonsense posted were true, then we wouldn't have to worry....

Not to say exposure to second hand smoke is good, but If it were as bad as we are being led to believe, all of the patrons in the smoke-filled establishments in Emporia would be dead already and there wouldn't be any smokers left, so again, no need for this unnecessary ban.

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why haven't we heard from any local physicians? Surely if this critically important health problem in Emporia is so bad, there must be many people being treated for 2nd hand smoke exposure.

How 'bout it, Docs? Are there any of you out there treating anyone with health problems you are willing to say are directly attributed to second hand smoke (not smoking....second hand smoke)?

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A new study reveals women who have routinely been around smokers may face greater challenges when trying to conceive. Reuters Health said that while previous studies have indicated that female smokers increase their risks of pregnancy complications, miscarriage and infant health problems, this latest study is showing other risks.

Over 4,800 women were included in the study, which was led by Luke J. Peppone, Ph.D., research assistant professor at Rochester’s James P. Wilmot Cancer Center at the University of Rochester, New York, Reuters said. Peppone’s team found those who were raised with a parent who smoked were likelier to report problems conceiving after having tried for the one-year mark by which infertility problems are generally identified, said Reuters. Women exposed to second-hand smoke as both children and adults saw a 39 percent increased likelihood of undergoing a miscarriage or stillbirth and a 68 percent greater chance of experiencing infertility problems.

“These statistics are breathtaking and certainly (point) to yet another danger of second-hand smoke exposure. We all know that cigarettes and second-hand smoke are dangerous. Breathing the smoke has lasting effects, especially for women when they’re ready for children,” Peppone told Reuters.
-- Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

commonsenseemporia( or CAE stooge), CAE, crackinsack, all CAE advocates- First of all it would seem that the only facts you state are not all or complete facts, you only post those facts or parts of facts that are aimed at scaring people, hence scare tactics, well here is an old, old, old scare tale, statement, " The sky is falling, The sky is Falling". I say this to the people of Emporia, think, choose and decide for yourselves while you are still able to and do not be taken in or swayed by misleading or incomplete facts. These smoking ban advocates have a real knack for misleading the public, trying to bypass public opinion, public voting and trying to scare people into believing that they and only they know whats best for all of Emporias citizens, so just think and reason for yourselves and do what you think is right and fair for all Emporias citizens. Also rember that there is or was a smoking law already present in Emporia, that was fair to all of Emporias citizens and that there is absolutely no justifiable reason for such a restrictive law that degrades and discriminates against a group of citizens and businesses, and that this proposed new ban will in fact take away certain rights of a specific group of citizens and citizen owned business and absolutely does not ban or restrict another certain group of citizens. So again I say, you the open minded citizens, think about it and do what you think is right and fair to all the citizens of Emporia.
Think about this for a moment, if the CAE and its advocates were so enthusiastic about the health of all Emporians, would they not be banning any activity that causes unhealthy air polluting toxins, I posted the web address of sites that have facts on the health hazards of burning wood. Yet they are not concerned about such a health hazard. Their standard reply to my comments about banning wood smoke from fireplaces, etc., was and is, " that serves a beneficial purpose" or something along those lines. So you see they are really not as concerned about the public health in general, only forcing a certain section of the population to abide by what they need and want or force every one to live by their rules.
In fact here is a statement of fact from one of those websites I mentioned above.

"While wood smoke is similar to second hand tobacco smoke, research findings indicate that second hand wood smoke has potentially an even greater ability to damage your health and the health of your family and loved ones."

And just think this smoke belches from numerious chimneys etc., in Emporia and travels a lot further than tobacco smoke !
What do you think of that statement of fact, all of you ban smoking ban, health advocates.

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

methulsa: Not to mention the smoke from all those chimneys affects not only those outside, but those inside smoker and nonsmoker.

Posted by romano1784 (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Women exposed to second-hand smoke as both children and adults saw a 39 percent increased likelihood of undergoing a miscarriage or stillbirth and a 68 percent greater chance of experiencing infertility problems.

What are the percentages of women who weren't exposed to shs, or by smoking? Does this mean that all nonsmoking women have 68% better chance of not having a miscarriage or stillborn?

I read one of commons post indicating that smoking was one cause, or attributing factor to SIDS. Call me crazy but when my son was born I asked the doctor what can be done to prevent SIDS, funny thing. He said they still don't know with any certainty what causes SIDS so there was no definite way to prevent it, only to take precautions and exercise good childcare. Huh.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think most on here get it. CAE used these tatctics and a little grease to get the commission to pass this manifesto. I was surprised that two of the commissioners ( who I thought were intelligiant men) bought it . I just don't think it will work on the average Emporian.
STEVE-O

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did any of those infertile women drink out of plastic soda bottles or reheat food in plastic containers? Had they ever been on the pill? Did they eat meat and dairy products from hormonally enhanced livestock? If so, their infertility cannot be attributed primarily to SHS. While Johnson & Johnson financially greases the wheels to force sales of their nicotine products, there are other large corporations and pharmaceutical companies that are financially preventing information about xenoestrogens from becoming public knowledge. If their money didn't stand in the way, we would know the numbers of related breast and reproductive cancers in men and women in all of westernized culture. I am not a betting person, but I would put money on those numbers being much higher than any SHS-related-to-cancer numbers. Infertility is on the rise at a high rate in North America and Western Europe while the number of smokers is decreasing. Somehow, that seems to cancel out some of those really scary sounding claims.
Steve-o (I kind of like that too), I enjoyed your 6:25 post. It's amazing what a person or group can do with half-truths. I also believe that there are enough of us BS detectors here in Emporia to put a stop to this nonsense. I hope we can help our fellow citizens understand that our local votes are more powerful than our state and national votes--like electricity coming out of the power station. It is strongest when it's closest to it's point of origin and while it decreases in power the further away it gets, it is still valuable and functional many, many miles away.
Mister O, methusla, seriously, romano, neighbor, josiesbar, Weltha, LifeGoesOn, MatthewCook, djdiablo, OutsiderJ, agoldengirl: HERE, HERE!!!! Keep it up--you're doing great!!

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Commonsenseemporia posted:

"Women exposed to second-hand smoke as both children and adults saw a 39 percent increased likelihood of undergoing a miscarriage or stillbirth and a 68 percent greater chance of experiencing infertility problems."

I counter:

Females have a 100 percent increased likelihood of undergoing a miscarriage or stillbirth than non-females.

BUT...what percentage of those females actually experience miscarriage or stillbirth?

Statistics on "increased likelihood" are meaningless without follow-up statistics on actual results.

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Objectives. We examined the association of local restaurant and bar regulations with self-reported exposure to environmental tobacco smoke among adults.

Methods. Data were derived from a telephone survey involving a random sample of Massachusetts households.

Results. Compared with adults from towns with no restaurant smoking restrictions, those from towns with strong regulations had more than twice the odds of reporting nonexposure to environmental tobacco smoke (odds ratio [OR]=2.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.97, 3.80), and those from towns with some restrictions had 1.62 times the odds of reporting nonexposure (OR=1.62; 95% CI=1.29, 2.02). Bar smoking bans had even greater effects on exposure.

Conclusions. Strong local clean indoor air regulations were associated with lower levels of reported exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in restaurants and bars.

By Alison B. Albers, PhD, Michael Siegel, MD, MPH, Debbie M. Cheng, PhD, Nancy A. Rigotti, MD and Lois Biener, PhD

Alison B. Albers and Michael Siegel are with the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Mass. Debbie M. Cheng is with the Biostatistics Department, Boston University School of Public Health. Nancy A. Rigotti is with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Lois Biener is with the Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts, Boston.

--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tobacco companies have funded nearly 50 studies on the link between secondhand smoke and heart disease -- but when scientists found a connection, the industry skewed their conclusions or stopped funding them, report University of California researchers.

The researchers -- Eliza Tong of UC Davis and UC San Francisco's Stanton Glantz -- analyzed 5,000 internal company documents uncovered by lawsuits. Their findings, recently published in Circulation, are the first such review of the industry's work on secondhand smoke and heart disease. Scientists agree that frequent exposure ups disease risk by 30 percent.

--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is too much!

"Conclusions. Strong local clean indoor air regulations were associated with lower levels of reported exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in restaurants and bars."

Ummmmmm.........DUH!!!!!!!! How many years of college and hours of research and how much taxpayer money in college tuition grants, loans and research funding backed this no-brainer statement? OH MY GOSH!!!!!!!!! They really do think we are dumber than potatoes!!!!!!

"Scientists agree that frequent exposure ups disease risk by 30 percent."

Is it just me, or are the percentage numbers decreasing while the number of obscure terms (might, could, risk, chance, likelihood, etc)increasing?
BTW, I'm watching the movie Eagle Eye right now, and simultaneously reading this brainwashing propaganda that we are supposed to be hypnotized by, is creeping me out alot.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Ed: Doctors say that Nordberg has a 50/50 chance of living, though there's only a 10 percent chance of that."

This is a quote from the movie The Naked Gun from the files of Police Squad. It really makes ya think, huh?

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 17, 2009 at 11:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

“98% of people will die sometime in their lives.”

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at midnight (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof- Obviously the CAE and supporters do not know how to avoid "frequent" exposure to anything let alone cigarette smoke or SHS.
And I have proven that burning wood in a fireplace may be as bad or worse than cigarette smoke. And one cannot avoid fireplace or heating stove smoke, it goes up and out the chimney of numerous houses and travels all over the town and neighborhood.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 12:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

methusla:
It is so sad for them that they didn't learn how to make choices to arrange their lives for their own convenience without infringing on others. I wonder who is responsible for giving them the idea that it's all about them--that it's their world and we are just living in it. I believe they see us as tax generators to get what they want, when they want, where they want, how they want and nothing more.
I had this conversation once with a smoker where I said that I would never live with a smoker. When asked why, I replied that any person I lived with would have equal entitlement to use the residence to live their life in--as a roommate that pays equal rent or as a life partner that has legal equality. Either way, I didn't ever want to breathe excessive amounts of smoke or smell like smoke, but I would never banish my equal to the outdoors for my own preferences--that would be unfair. I was 18 when I said that--I wish these people that claim higher learning and valuable experience could understand those kinds of principles instead of the ones they live by.
(BTW--that person and I have been happily married for over a decade now and neither one's rights or preferences have been compromised)

Posted by Pingeon (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 12:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

communistsenseemporia(Teresa) is like the Phelps clan. If people would quit responding directly, the publicity would wear off and she would quit posting half-truths. When the crickets chirp, the fun wears off...........

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Pingeon;
I believe your right on the crickets, but I think the intern from cae, (common sense) has their laptop set on an automatic random reply program and it is stored with 100's of mind numbing and unscientific factoids. How are things down in Wichita with their ban?
Steve

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof-If everyone in Emporia lived by your phylosophy of life, which is also my phylosophy, Emporia, would be the most pleasant community to live in. However their are those in Emporia and indeed the nation and world who only live by the phylosophy of the wants and needs of I,I,I, ME,ME,ME, or WE,WE,WE, which also is very sad and it seems that they will never change !

Posted by Pingeon (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi Steve,

Business is down from the ban. Magically, the new non-smokers that everybody claimed would show up to replace the smokers never came. One bar went back to smoking after 3 weeks they were losing so much money. The college puts on a mingle event every other month for graduates from the MBA program at one of the local non-smoking bars. We are about the only ones there the last couple times I have been.

The restaurants may be a different story. The ones that had a steady clientele of smokers built a separate room for the smokers. The rest just went non-smoking.

Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Pingeon: Which bar are you talking about?

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

irish,
what difference does it make? Pingeon is stating their facts,based on their research, and you should except it. Doesn't matter if they are facts or opinions, much like the "factoids" pasted here by commonsense, who I think should be re-named fasciest-fanny.
Steve-O

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi Steve,

Business is down from the ban. Magically, the new non-smokers that everybody claimed would show up to replace the smokers never came. One bar went back to smoking after 3 weeks they were losing so much money. The college puts on a mingle event every other month for graduates from the MBA program at one of the local non-smoking bars. We are about the only ones there the last couple times I have been.

The restaurants may be a different story. The ones that had a steady clientele of smokers built a separate room for the smokers. The rest just went non-smoking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am 100% positive business is also down due to economy being in the crapper, you guys jumped all over the facts on the other side then

"Business is down from the ban."

Impossible to say at this point given the current economic climate and companies just now reporting 4th quarter figures are they not? I am not saying that some of the drop in business is not due to the ban, but blaming it and it alone is not right either.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Now we are all getting it right?

You just proved a point , goodoleboy, on the facts and figures being thrown around. It was pingeons opinion on the business aspect of the businessess in wichita. I don't think that pingeon blamed the loss of business solely on the ban did they? And with the economy in the crapper(perfect term), do we really need a new government regulation that may, possibly, hurt small business?
Steve

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, did you notice the one bar, mentioned that went non-smoking went back to smoking after 3-weeks of no non-smokers coming in? So in that case the loss of business was attributable to the ban.
irish;
And the name of the bar I am thinking about is Emmerson-Biggans, I don't know if that was who pingeon was talking about.

Posted by Pingeon (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The economy was not totally in the crapper when our ban was put in place. The bar I am talking about is Emmerson Biggins in Old Town. That place went smoke free for 3 weeks and then went back to smoking. Emmerson Biggins blamed it on the smoking ban, not the economy. I feel that they are the ones who know the most about their business, so when they blame it on the smoking ban I trust what they say.

I tried to look up the article in the Wichita paper that talked specifically about them after they went back to smoking. I couldn't find that one, but I did find one that mentioned them and did an interview with their manager. Their business is actually up now since other places don't offer smoking. Smokers go there so they can have a cigarette with their meal. They now have what is called a niche market. You know, kind of like The Blind has there by not allowing smoking.

Anyway, here is the link to the article. Not the one I was looking for, but it backs up what I was saying about them going back to smoking after 3 weeks.

http://www.kansas.com/news/story/645364....

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a simple question for ya and anyone can answer this one.
If all the non-smoking businesses were suddenly forced or required to allow smoking, how do you think that would affect their businesses, would smokers come and non-smokers leave ?
And answering this question will absolutely show, whether you get it or don't get it, don't you think ?
You may answer or not " IT IS YOU FREEDOM OF CHOICE" .

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

P.S. Please excuse the type error, my mind is running faster than my fingers.

Posted by Pingeon (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

methusla - I think in that situation, non-smokers would leave. A few smokers may show up, but not totally replace the non-smokers. The smokers would continue to frequent where they currently did.

Basically, what will happen with this ban in reverse.

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Copied and pasted from another blog:

"3,000 annual deaths from lung cancer due to secondhand smoke."

"...smoking ban proponents always state the statistic as "3,000 deaths without any reference to the affected population referenced, which leaves the impression that the statistic refers to a random group that puts everybody or anybody at risk. This is not the case.

The 3,000 figure comes from a study of lung cancer rates in non-smoking spouses of smoking spouses. In other words, assuming the study methodology is valid, what the 3,000 number indicates is that lung cancer deaths for 3,000 non-smoking spouses might be correlated to secondhand smoke.

The words “might be” are used because the “odds ratio” determined by the study is 1.25. Statistically, a calculation greater than 1 indicates correlation, but that calculation must be in the 3-4 range before definite causality can be assumed."

"Using data from the same study, applying the same statistical risk ratio analysis that is used to arrive at the 3,000 death number, the data shows no statistical correlation between secondhand smoke and lung cancer in non-smoking spouses until 31 years of exposure. And then the risk is as low as a 1 percent increase in risk, a 51 percent increase in risk on the high side of the confidence interval."

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Want to know what's next on the agenda? Here you go, straight from Great Britain...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlh...

SCARY!

Matt

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In May 2003, professors James Enstrom of UCLA and professor Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook reported in the British Medical Journal that their 39-year study of 35,561 Californians who had never smoked showed no "causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and tobacco-related mortality.

Why take seriously a study that contradicts what everyone already knows?

The answer is simple: Because "what everyone knows" is wrong. It's the UCLA study that's most consistent with other research.

A 1999 Environmental Health Perspectives survey of 17 ETS-heart disease studies found only five that were statistically significantly positive.

In 2002, an analysis of 48 studies addressing a possible ETS link to lung cancer found only 10 that were significantly positive, one that was significantly negative, and 37 that, like the Enstrom and Kabat work, were insignificant either way.

How can research find second-hand smoke to be so benign, when research shows active tobacco smoking to be so dangerous? Perhaps in part because "the dose makes the poison."

We are constantly bombarded by substances proven to be carcinogens, but in tiny amounts the body usually easily fends them off. Second-hand smoke falls into this category.

A New England Journal of Medicine study found that even back in 1975--when having smoke puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants, cocktail lounges, and transportation lounges--the concentration was equal to merely 0.004 cigarettes an hour. In scientific terminology, that's a "tiny amount."

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Matt; A great link to a great video.

I HOPE EVERYONE LISTENS TO THE FULL 9 MINUTES AND 7 SECONDS.

THE LAST 7 SECONDS SAYS IT ALL.
STEVE-O

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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 report has been used by the tobacco-control movement and government agencies, including public health departments, to justify the imposition of thousands of indoor smoking bans in public places.

Flawed Assumptions

EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.

Even so, the EPA report was cited in the surgeon general's 2006 report on SHS, where then-Surgeon General Richard Carmona made the absurd claim that there is no risk-free level of exposure to SHS.

Epidemiologists calculate confidence intervals to express the likelihood a result could happen just by chance. A CI of 95 percent allows a 5 percent possibility that the results occurred only by chance.

Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

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."

The judge added, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before the research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate its conclusion; and aggressively utilized its authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme to influence public opinion."

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Air quality tests performed in Minnesota and California in smoke-filled bars and restaurants show that secondhand smoke may not be the major health hazard that some claim it is.

The Environmental Health Department in St. Louis Park, Minn., tested for trace levels of nicotine and found results between 1 and 33 micrograms of nicotine per cubic meter of air.

The California Environmental Protection Agency tested for trace levels of nicotine in outdoor smoking areas and found (PDF) results between 0.01 and 5 micrograms of nicotine per cubic meter of air.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations specify a limit for nicotine in the air of 500 micrograms per cubic meter of air.

The California study went on to state that people who have only “brief encounters with [secondhand smoke] are likely to be exposed to less than 0.1 [micrograms per cubic meter of air]” over a 24-hour time-weighted average.

This means not only is it not going to kill you to smell smoke once in a while, it isn’t even going to have much of an effect on you.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another new Non-Smoking restaurant opens in downtown Emporia.

WING'S & THING'S @ 409 Commercial is now open. It is non-smoking and if you like wings, you should try it now!
Try it now cause it is good eating. Try it now before March 3rd.

After March third you will have to walk through the clouds of smoke from Irv and I, and our customers who were forced outside on the sidewalk to smoke by this new ordinance. We will try to be polite as you walk through the haze, but heh, you wanted it.
Steve Corbin

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, commonsense--

You never answered my question. Are you a member of Clean-Air Emporia or Emporians For Drug Awareness?

Also, the city is $60 MILLION in debt, do you REALLY think that people smoking in bars should be their primary concern?

Matt

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Way to go Doug Morrisey,

One little letter got all these people talking.
218 posts and growing.
Steve

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Breathing secondhand smoke makes the platelets in your blood behave like those of a regular smoker. Even a short time in a smoky room causes your blood platelets to stick together. Secondhand smoke also damages the lining of your blood vessels. In your heart, these bad changes can cause a deadly heart attack.

Secondhand smoke changes how your heart, blood, and blood vessels work in many ways. Adults who breathe 5 hours of secondhand smoke daily have higher “bad” cholesterol that clogs arteries.
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

“98% of people will die sometime in their lives.”

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In 2005, U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona said, "The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard."

At the time, Carmona released a seemingly impressive 727-page report on secondhand smoke, the introduction of which claims secondhand smoke killed approximately 50,000 nonsmoking adults and children in 2005.

Carmona's report stated the new orthodoxy in the anti-smoking establishment: There is a "consensus" on the dangers of secondhand smoke. But did his report actually make the case?

Understanding Carmona's report requires familiarity with a different report--the Federal Judicial Center's 2000 "Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Second Edition," the official guide for judges to understand and rule on science introduced in courtrooms.

According to the manual, nearly all the studies cited in Carmona's report wouldn't pass muster in a court of law because they are observational studies, the sample sizes are too small, or the effects they show are too negligible to be reliable.

For example, the Reference Manual states, "the threshold for concluding that an agent was more likely than not the cause of an individual's disease is a relative risk greater than 2.0." Few of the studies Carmona cites found relative risks this large, and most found risks in a range that included 1.0, which means exposure to secondhand smoke had no effect on the incidence of disease. In the world of real science, that's a knockout blow.

Most of the research Carmona cites was rejected by a federal judge in 1993, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first tried to classify secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen. The judge said EPA cherry-picked studies to support its position, misrepresented the most important findings, and failed to honor scientific standards. Carmona's report relies on the same studies and makes the same claims EPA did a decade ago.

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Carmona mentions the Enstrom study just once, in an appendix listing studies too recent to include in the report. But Enstrom's study was published four years ago, and Carmona cites more recent studies. In fact, Carmona's principal "findings" were taken from a 2005 report--not a scientific study, merely another report--from California's Clean Air Resources Board, mostly citing the very studies the federal judge rejected in 1993.

The Enstrom study isn't the odd exception among all the available studies on secondhand smoke. A 2002 analysis of 48 studies, also published in the British Medical Journal, found only seven showed a relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer, while 41 did not.

A 1998 World Health Organization (WHO) study covering seven countries over seven years actually showed a statistically significant reduced risk for children of smokers and no increase for spouses and coworkers of smokers.

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

After spending only 30 minutes in a smoke-filled room, participants in a study had losses in their blood levels of antioxidants, including vitamin C, according to a study reported today in an American Heart Association journal.

By depleting the body's stores of antioxidants, secondhand smoke breaks down this valuable defense against heart disease, says the study's lead author, Timo Kuusi, M.D., Ph.D., of the department of medicine, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

"An increasing number of reports have documented the harmful effects of environmental tobacco smoke. The present study demonstrates how secondhand smoke could increase the risk of coronary heart disease, a major cause of heart attacks," he says.

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another little-publicized study was conducted by the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC) part of the World Health Organization (WHO). The research ran for 10 years and covered 7 European countries. No matter how it's spun (and it has been) the study concluded there was no statistically significant risk for non-smokers who either lived with or worked with smokers. In fact, the only numbers it arrived at that had actual statistical significance, showed a slightly decreased lung cancer risk in later life among the children of smokers.

A 2003 study with an impeccable provenance-- the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study (CPS1)-- shows the same results as the WHO study, and with no room for wiggle, spin or ambiguity.

Focusing on 35,561 never-smoking Californians married to smokers, who were followed by the Cancer Society for 39 years (1959 to 1998), the tabular results not only--and absolutely -- showed no lung cancer risk whatsoever but actually showed a slightly lower risk than expected among the general never-smoker population.

These results held for both men (0.75 @ 95% confidence) and women (0.99 @ 95%), held both before and after the results were mathematically adjusted for seven relevant confounders, and further, showed no dose response trend (the risks did not grow with the amount of exposure.)

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Admiral Benson: Pete 'Dead Meat' Thompson is dead. So is Mo Green, Tataglia, Barzini, the heads of all the five families. It is at moments like these, my dear friends, that we must ask ourselves: "How can this not be part of some larger plan?" Do good men like Dead Meat Thompson just blink out one day like a bad bulb? I mean, one minute you're in bed with a knockout gal... or guy, and the next, you're a compost heap. Doesn't that bother any of you? Because it scares the living p*** outta me! "

from Hot Shots the movie

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let me share some facts with everyone. These facts come from the City of Emporia's own list of codes or laws, so read and comtemplate.
Chapter 16- MISCILLANEOUS PROVISIONS AND OFFENSES

ARTICLE III - CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

ARTICLE IX - CRIMES INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF PERSONAL RIGHTS
Sec. 16-218. Smoking in public places.

(a) As used in this section:

(1) Public place means enclosed indoor areas open to the public or used by the general public including, but not limited to: Restaurants, retail stores, public means of mass transportation, passenger elevators, health care institutions or any other place where health care services are provided to the public, educational facilities, libraries, courtrooms, state, county, or municipal buildings, restrooms, grocery stores, school buses, museums, theaters, auditoriums, arenas and recreational facilities.

(2) Public meeting includes all meetings open to the public.

(3) Smoking means possession of a lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe, or any other lighted smoking equipment.

(b) (1) No person shall smoke in a public place or at a public meeting except in designated smoking areas.

(2) Smoking areas may be designated by proprietors or other persons in charge of public places, except in passenger elevators, school buses, public means of mass transportation, and any other place in which smoking is prohibited by the fire marshall or by other law, ordinance, or regulation.

(3) Where smoking areas are designated, existing physical barriers and ventilation systems shall be used to minimize the toxic effect of smoke in adjacent nonsmoking areas.

(c) The proprietor or other person in charge of the premises of a public place shall post or cause to be posted in a conspicuous place signs clearly stating that smoking is prohibited by law. The person in charge of the premises shall also post or cause to be posted in any designated smoking area, signs stating that smoking is permitted in such room or area. The proprietor or person in charge of the public place shall have the authority to establish the percentage of area in the public place which shall be posted and designated as a smoking area.

(d) Any person found guilty of smoking in violation of this Section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than twenty dollars ($20.00) for each violation. Any person found guilty of failing to post signs as required by this Section, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than fifty dollars ($50.00). In addition to any other remedies, the City may institute injunction or other appropriate action in any court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin repeated violations of this Section.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

P.S. Sorry I couldn't put the whole thing here, but will get the second part shortly.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(e) If any provisions of this Section, or the application thereof to any person, thing or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not effect the provisions of application of this Section that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Section are declared to be severable. (Ord. 87-16, � 1, 7-1-1987)
The City Commissioner at the time of this ordinance knew that everone has " PERSONAL RIGHTS" and took that into consideration when crafiting the current smoking ordinance and this ordinance was addopted at a time when the smoke and SHS controversy was raging.
Does anyone believe that this current smoking ordinance is not fair or imparshial to any citizen of Emporia?
Now does anyone have any arguments ?

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

P.S. There you have it, straight from the " horses mouth" so to speak. And as you can see this porposed CAE smoking ban is a "VIOLATION OF PERSONAL RIGHTS" just as the previous I have been saying all along.
So again I say to all Emporians, read, think and choose for yourselves, after all it is your " PERSONAL RIGHT" and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Posted by commonsenseemporia (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

-->San Francisco’s first nonsmoking bar opened in 1992. When the bar owner advertised for bartenders to fill job openings, emphasizing that it would be a smoke-free environment, he had more than 600 applicants.
San Francisco Chronicle, July 1992

-->60,000 current and former flight attendants have filed a $5 billion class action suit against a number of tobacco companies because of illnesses caused by their exposure to secondhand smoke on flights before the 1989 smoking ban. Exposure was equivalent to actively smoking about once cigarette per flight.
New York Times, Nov 6, 1994, p.A11

-->And Audio Digest Internal Medicine, November 3, 1993
Workers who take four ten minute work breaks a day to smoke actually work one month less per year than workers who don’t take smoking breaks.
Action on Smoking and Health, March 1994

-->The costs of health care, increased fire insurance, damage to property, absenteeism, and lost productivity average as much as $4,600 for each smoker per year.
Weiss, Seattle University

--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good job with showing the old ordinance methusla, it worked so well for so long until someone got bored.

Picture this;
Afternoon bridge club at the club.
The ladies sipping on their wine and talking about family matters, you know, the usual stuff, college tuitions, the latest sales in Kansas City,cheating spouses, who's about to declare bankruptcy, bailing the kids out of jail for minor in possession, DUI, how could that Suzy wear last years Armani to the social, etc.
The discussions takes a sudden turn;
"You know we have done so well with our lives, we should help out all the cities poor un-washed masses."
"But how do we do that?" it is asked
"Let's get rid of all those nasty saloons on main street", is the reply.
"We can't do that, prohabition didn't work", stated as fact.
A few more gulps of Chablis and it hits them.
A Smoking ban!
Get Rid of the drinkers and smokers at the same time!
"Ok, Who do we get to ramrod this", it is asked.
"How about the new girl", unanimous chorus.
And so it begins another saga in the "Days Of Our Lives"

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Any simularities to real persons or events in the above fictional story line are purley speculative on the readers part.
Steve

Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Geez Stev-o, keep publishing dumb stuff like that and I'll have to skip reading your posts. :) I already skip Meth's blabber. It adds nothing to the debate.

By the way, I'm for getting rid of the Nasty Bars, too. Replace them with some quality joints and the profits won't depend on the nicotine addicts.

Just curious, Stevie, on which side of the line is your bar?

Nice to see you calming down. I was worried you might not make it to see our new president take office.

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is on record as wanting to remove healthy children from intact homes if one of their family smokes. He also favors national smoking bans both indoors and out throughout America, and has litigation kits for sale on how to get your landlord to evict your smoking neighbors.

Banzhaf originally wanted OSHA to ban smoking in all American workplaces.

It's not even that OSHA wasn't happy to play along; it's just that--darn it -- they couldn't find the real-world science to make it credible.

So Banzhaf sued them. Suing federal agencies to get them to do what you want is, alas, a new trick in the political deck of cards. But OSHA, at least apparently, hung tough.

In response to Banzhaf's law suit they said the best they could do would be to set some official standards for permissible levels of smoking in the workplace.

Scaring Banzhaf, and Glantz and the rest of them to death.

Permissible levels? No, no. That would mean that OSHA, officially, said that smoking was permitted. That in fact, there were levels (hard to exceed, as we hope we've already shown) that were generally safe.

This so frightened Banzhaf that he dropped the case. Here are excerpts from his press release:

"ASH has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against OSHA...to avoid serious harm to the non-smokers rights movement from adverse action OSHA had threatened to take if forced by the suit to do it....developing some hypothetical [ASH's characterization] measurement of smoke pollution that might be a better remedy than prohibiting smoking....[T]his could seriously hurt efforts to pass non-smokers' rights legislation at the state and local level...

Another major threat was that, if the agency were forced by ASH's suit to promulgate a rule regulating workplace smoking, [it] would be likely to pass a weak one.... This weak rule in turn could preempt future and possibly even existing non-smokers rights laws-- a risk no one was willing to take.

As a result of ASH's dismissal of the suit, OSHA will now withdraw its rule-making proceedings but will do so without using any of the damaging [to Anti activists] language they had threatened to include."
-ASH Nixes OSHA Suit To Prevent Harm To Movement

Looking on the bright side, Banzhaf concludes:

"We might now be even more successful in persuading states and localities to ban smoking on their own, once they no longer have OSHA rule-making to hide behind."

Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it's true motive is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making them "social outcasts") --not "safe air."

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey good to see we haven't run you off yet irish.
Always enjoy your posts.

Seems to me we had a nice place in emporia, Natasha's it is closed now and For Sale.
Why don't you and your non-smoking friends form an investment group and talk to the folks down at E.S.B. I'm sure they will take a loss to get it off their books. Buy it ,open it as Emporia's Premiere NON-SMOKING CLUB.
Then you can reap the profits from other non-smokers and run us nasty ole bars out of business. But be prepared to pay cash for the place, I don't know if E.S.B. will finance another bar. Just depends on who you are of course.
Let's see I just suggested a solution for this smoking ban, at the same time promoting the free market system of supply and demand. Not all my posts are drivel.

Side of the line? Explain?
And please, only my Mother and Santa Clause called me stevie.
Steve-O

Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Are you the owner of a Nasty Bar or a Quality Joint.

And how do you know I am not Santa Claus, or your Mother? ;-)

As far as owning a bar, I would love to. Unlike you, I don't have either the guts or the brains.

Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MisterO, I believe we covered the ASH/OSHA issue months ago. But that is OK. You put a good -- and interesting -- spin on it.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Irish;
well I know you're not my mother cause she doesn't own a computer, like so many other senior citizens. I don't think your'e Santa, cause you are Irish right?

I always tell people my bar is a dive but we like it that way.
And you don't have to have any brains to open a bar, as a matter of fact, most people with a lick of sense, wouldn't even consider it.
Steve-O

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

irishemporia posted:

"MisterO, I believe we covered the ASH/OSHA issue months ago. But that is OK. You put a good -- and interesting -- spin on it."

No spin, Irish...just copying and pasting from various sources. Anyone with common sense can do it.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well all, it is time for Steve-O to take a break for a couple of hours. Got to write some checks to pay Federal and state witholding taxes. Yes, unlike some on the anti-smoking side I pay my employee taxes and don't run up huge tax liens.
Steve-O

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

irishemporia- You can skip all of my blabber as you put it as far as I am concerned. However it seems that when anyone posts facts and truths, it not only tongue ties you but freezes your brain as well and your are a great one to even attempt to determine what is blabber or quality as well, since none of your posts are of any quality.
Who composes your posts for you, seeing as you or the rest of the ban smoking bunch can't make choices for yourselves.
You, commonsenseemporia, crackinsack, and the other ban smoking supporters are a perfect example and proof, that this smoking ban, porposed by the CAE and its supporters, if it passes a vote, as well as comments made by you smoking ban supporters, is and will not be the only attempt at doing away with or restricting, the rights of certain citizens or all citizens of Emporia.

Posted by LifeGoesOn (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought with over 200 posts on this matter that there would be more people, but I see it looks as if its the same ol 8 to 10 people are just bored and like typing the same thing over and over, the vote cant get here soon enough for me!.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's not true I don't like typing the same thing over and over.
It's not true I don't like typing the same thing over and over.
It's not true I don't like typing the same thing over and over.
It's not true I don't like typing the same thing over and over.
It's not true I don't like typing the same thing over and over.
It's not true I don't like typing the same thing over and over.
It's not true I don't like typing the same thing over and over.
It's not true I don't like typing the same thing over and over.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on January 18, 2009 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, so maybe I'm a little bored.;)

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 19, 2009 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MisterO;

See what I mean, even when you sight actual press releases & quotes, as you did in the ASH-OSHA post, they accuse YOU of putting a spin on it. Irish can refuse to listen to the truth, but others will.
Steve-O

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 19, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

On July 31, 2000 The Coalition for a Smoke-Free City ran a full page ad in the New York Times, lobbying the City Council for a total ban on smoking, not only in all restaurants, but in nightclubs and bars.

Instead of quoting the ad, we'd like to quote from an editorial that itself quotes from the ad. The editorial was written by Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, and no friend of smokers. In it, she accuses her own compatriots of "alarmism" "hyperbole" and --to put it uneuphemistically-- lying about the effects of secondhand smoke in order to push their agenda.

To quote Dr. Whelan:

"[T]he headlines... are alarmist: 'Secondhand Smoke... causes lung cancer, heart disease, asthma and respiratory disease...[and a sub-head goes on to claim], 'The #1 Killer in the American Workplace is... Secondhand Smoke.'

What we have here is...hyperbole about the likely effects of secondhand smoke...[T]he main message from this ad is that workers (such as bartenders) exposed to secondhand smoke are at significant risk of lung cancer and heart disease. [But] the evidence linking ETS with chronic disease is much more speculative than that...simply put, the role of ETS in the development of chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease is uncertain and controversial [and your assertions are] without scientific basis.

By exaggerating, the Coalition only serves to give ammunition to those who...maintain that health advocates, motivated by the "end justifies the means" philosophy, frequently play quick and dirty with the facts in an attempt to justify the interventions they want."

Posted by MisterO (anonymous) on January 19, 2009 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And, insult to injury (the insulted-and-injured party here is nothing less than The Truth) not only do they present "controversial" "uncertain" "speculative" linkages as hard empirical fact, but add numbers to give them weight.

And not only that, but the numbers keep mounting. The speculative body- count rises from 3,000 to 53,000 to 65,000 and, at last years hearings at the New York City council, somebody racked it up to 150,000. But, hey, who's counting? Nobody's counting, because there aren't bodies to count. These are speculative conjectures, based on an iffy theory (and more on that later) and even the possible range of these computer-projected numbers are quoted only at peak.

Whelan says as much in a discussion about her article in an ACSH forum:

"The estimates of ETS caused deaths are guesstimates at best...Theoretical numbers...Maybe there are no deaths due to ETS in the workplace."

Perhaps equally interesting, is the activists' rationale for why they have to play the game.

Dr. Whelan has maintained, staunchly, under attack from a lot of the other advocates, that "science-wise and PR-wise, I think we'd accomplish more...if we stressed the known, proven effects of ETS and dropped the theoretical charges."

She defines the known effects as:

"Irritation of the eyes, nose and respiratory tract and aggravated pre-existing asthma. Surely that is enough to justify [bans]."

Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on January 19, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Whoa guys. I did not mean to insult anyone. Everyone here, including me (especially me) puts a spin on their post so that it favors only their side of the argument. That's the art of debate.

We did cover the ASH/OSHA stuff awhile back. I was just pointing out that his spin was particularly interesting. Geez, compliment a guy and you still get bashed. Tough crowd.

Posted by josiesbar (anonymous) on January 19, 2009 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Huh, haven't heard anything from lackofcommonsense lately. The internet connection in Australia must be down...

Posted by irishemporia (anonymous) on January 19, 2009 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Matt,
He will be happy to know you miss him!

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on January 19, 2009 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Matt,
I know you are busy and all, but could you make sure the other bars downtown get the sheets signed, notarized and back down to HQ (HAH- HAH), Before Wed P.M.? If you have Joe's cell # ask him if he can help Wed. or Thurs. after work? I'll buy the "MOON"
Steve

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on January 19, 2009 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Way past time to move, folks:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...