Statewide smoking ban?
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Topeka — Proponents of a statewide smoking ban have come up with a new selling point for legislators trying to close a massive budget deficit: A ban would save the state money.
Legislation banning smoking has been considered in past years but has never gone very far. Businesses complain that prohibiting smoking in nearly all public places goes too far, and when proponents of a ban have tried to make concessions, they’ve lost the support of health advocates.
“It’s a budget issue now. This is an initiative that saves money,” Sen. David Wysong, a Republican from Mission and longtime supporter of a ban, said Tuesday.
Wysong said the state spends some $200 million a year in Medicaid care for people with tobacco-related illnesses. A statewide ban would save the state millions of dollars, he said.
Studies in other states have shown that heart ailments decrease after a statewide smoking ban is enacted, Wysong said.
The Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee plans hearings next week on a bill that would impose a statewide ban with few exceptions. The chairman is Republican Jim Barnett, an Emporia physician, who supports the ban.
Wysong said the measure would allow local ordinances to take precedent if they were stronger than the state law.
The Emporia City Commission approved a municipal smoking ban last year, and opponents are attempting to require a public vote on the ordinance.
A Kansas Department of Health and Environment report released last year said 26 cities and counties had passed clean indoor air laws, covering about 28 percent of the state’s population. The department says about 3,900 Kansans die each year from cigarette smoking and an additional 290 die from secondhand smoke.
Proponents contend a statewide ban is the only way to create a uniform policy on clean indoor air throughout the state. Opponents maintain it would hurt businesses and is an example of the state intruding on local governments.
At least 22 states require all public places to be smoke-free and nine others impose restrictions that exempt restaurants or bars in varying degrees.
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
Here we go again, and oh look more statistics. CAE get your big boy pants on.
January 21, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
“It’s a budget issue now."
Because as a health-issue, it got smacked-down in a blaze of glory.
If this ban passes in June, I bet EDA will be THRILLED they spent tens of thousands of dollars to get a smoking ban in Emporia for, AT THE MOST, 3 months. Of course, when ( :D ) it gets overturned in April, they will have spent tens of thousands of dollars so they could have a smoking ban for one month...
January 21, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Dave Hitt is a biased but unconnected blaster of anti smoker drivel. Josiebar(matt) sited his webpage on another thread today.
He did something that I would like to emulate now.
This article says, "and an additional 290 die from secondhand smoke"
To which I say, NAME THREE. Sounds easy, go ahead try it, irishinemporia, crackinsack, Teresa Walters, Ms. Sauder, anyone on the CAE, EDA, or anyother supporter of the ban.
Names and where they lived/died. I dare ya. I double dare ya. I double dog dare ya. Betch can't. If these "experts" couldn't I doubt anyone that has ever posted on this forum could either.
http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three....
January 21, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bobhornet (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
January 21, 2009 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
In another thread, I called upon the physicians of Emporia to please chime in and let us know how many people they are treating with health-related issues that they are willing to go on record saying are directly attributed to second hand smoke (not first-hand smoking....2nd hand smoke).
How 'bout it Docs? Any takers?
January 21, 2009 at 5:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
MisterO:
I personally know one of our local doctors and have been able to speak with his wife, but not him. She (signed the petition) said he has been incredibly busy these past couple of months with office hours running late because of all the people that have been sick and then the things he wants to do and time he has wanted to spend has not left time for these forums. I'm guessing this represents most of the regular docs right now.
crack:
All of the smokers I have ever been around have been well mannered about their smoke. In my experience, when a smoker knows another person doesn't like smoke but has no where else to go, they typically try to move away, or just put out their cig. I have found them all to be apologetic, but this requires my treatment of them to be as equal to me--not representing myself as better than or above them. You should try that approach sometime and you may find that when you aren't being despicable to them, they won't blow smoke in your face.
January 21, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crackinsack- There you go again, counting you chickens before they are hatched. Have you forgotten that the States, Senators and Congressmen that you and the CAE and other smoking ban advocates, may have in your back pocket or may have bought with taxpayer grant money are still answerable to the public voter and can just as easily be voted out of office as your smoking ban may be voted out in April.
And perhaps all of you people who believe yourselves to be all wise and smarter than anyone else and want to rule and dictate to all free people, should move to a third world country . It might be easier to con a third world countries citizens into believing that you know whats is best for them and they may let you rule them and dictate to them or be dictator over them.
How can you be so blind as to not know that a free, democratic people do not like, nor want anyone dictating to them how to live their lives and telling them they do not have enough intelligence or enough common sense or the right to choose or make life's decisions for them selves.
In a " FREE DEMOCRACY" no one person or group of persons has the soul right to take it upon hisself, herself or themselves, in the case of a group of persons, to dictate to, force, demand, abolish nor restrict any single person or group of persons the right nor freedom from freely choosing how, where or when they can live their lives as they see fit !
But apparently the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is no longer a "FREE DEMOCRACY", at least that is how it seems that some individuals and group of individuals see it, such as yourself, the CAE and the clean air coalition !
Also your statement, telling people who oppose a smoking ban, "to move to a third world country" absolutely proves every statement that has been quoted against you, the CAE and anyone who supports the smoking ban may be true.
I truely feel sorry for all of you, who apparently don't care that what you are accomplishing is the destruction of " FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY" and that history's lessons mean nothing to you.
January 21, 2009 at 6:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Hey OUtsider: Go ask your family doctor if second-hand smoke is safe. Ask he or she what the risk are if exposed to SHS. Ask 'em if it can lead to heart disease, lung cancer, etc., which ARE known killers.
Go ahead. Ask 'em. Then post their answer here. I dare you. I double dare you!
Seriously, why should we believe the experts when we have have Dave Hitt to rely for truthful and accurate information?
January 21, 2009 at 6:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
The good news is if this ban gets overturned here in Emporia, all someone has to do when they bring it to state is say "if this ban is bad for your hometown of Emporia, how can it be good for the rest of the state?"
January 21, 2009 at 6:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crackinsack- The United States, Freedom and Democracy need not worry about any foreign enemy destroying the United States or the Freedom and Democracy that this country had for so long. The destruction of this country and the Freedom and Democracy that most all of us cherrish, is being destroyed by this country's citizens and groups of citizens, such as yourself, the CAE, etc..You and others probably are or should be very proud of yourselves, in knowing the fact that you are destroying something that so many lives have been lost defending for over 200 years !
January 21, 2009 at 6:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
irishemporia- What I posted to crackinsack in my last 2 posts, is and was ment for all ban smoking supporters.
January 21, 2009 at 6:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Outsider: I am curious. Who do you consider to be an expert on second hand smoke?
January 21, 2009 at 6:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
irishemporia- Do you believe that there are to many variables to consider in knowing absolutely for sure what the soul cause of lung cancer, heart disease, etc., can be or is ?
Ask your doctor about all the variables to have to consider. And them ask him if he can absolutely say with a certainty that smoking and SHS is absolutely the single cause of lung cancer, heart disease, etc..
Go ahead ask em, and then post his or her answer here. I dare you!
In your own statement and I quote, "Ask 'em if it can lead to heart disease, lung cancer, etc., which ARE known killers."
You see the key word in you own statement is "LEAD" , which is not definitivly "ABSOLUTELY DOES CAUSE" lung cancer, heart disease.
Even your own statement conradicts all of your and other smoking ban supporters statements and supposed facts.
January 21, 2009 at 7 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crackinsack- The freedom and democracy loving voters of this country are also a force to be reconed with also, don't you think !
January 21, 2009 at 7:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
All you smokers and non-smokers, as you can see from the smoking ban supporters posts, if you read them carefully, you will see that when it comes to knowing whether smoking and SHS, absolutely can cause cancer, entirely by itself, there is no statistical facts saying that it can.
The statements both by the ban supporters and researchers always state that smoking and SHS either can, may, contributes to, or can lead to, etc., never a definitave or equivocal, absolutely is the sole cause of, cancer, lung cancer, lung disease, heart disease , etc.
And the reason these researchers either don't or cannot say with certainty that smoking or SHS absolute is the sole cause of cancer, lung cancer, heart disease, etc., is the fact that in the real world there are to many variables and other exposures to have to consider.
The CAE and its supporters put up smoke and mirrors, put a spin on and twist words to scare the citizens of Emporia, the State and yes even the country into believing smoking and SHS is the absolute single cause of some serious diseases.
Which is not true, smoking and SHS is not and has never been the sole, single cause of lung cancer, heart disease, etc., and they know it !
There are numerous other elements in our everyday lives that we are unknowingly exposed to that can also cause serious diseases. Just think about it and decide for yourselves.
January 21, 2009 at 7:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Heres a fact for smoking ban opponents and supporters,
Little of tobacco settlement spent on smoking cessation
By James Carlson
The Capital-Journal
Published Sunday, August 03, 2008
Of the hundreds of millions of dollars the state of Kansas has received from the 1998 master tobacco settlement, it has spent 1 percent on prevention and cessation programs.
The Sunflower State has pulled in $505 million from the tobacco companies since 1999, but spent just $7 million of that on activities aimed at reducing smoking.
"We tax people on cigarettes, we get money from smokers," said Mary Jayne Hellebust, director of the Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition. "Then we're getting these funds from the (settlement), but what are we providing to help them quit?"
State officials associated with the settlement money point out nearly all of it is funding worthy childhood programs, such as Early Head Start and prekindergarten. And Kansas isn't alone in how it is utilizing the money. The majority of states use payments from the tobacco giants for purposes other than smoking prevention.
But anti-smoking advocates say the 1998 settlement that 46 states entered into were meant to curb the states' Medicaid costs associated with tobacco-related illnesses. Even Melissa Ness, president of the Kansas Children's Cabinet and Trust Fund, which makes recommendations to the governor and Legislature about how to use the money, says that was the lawsuit's initial intent.
"The state just didn't choose to go in that direction," she said.
January 21, 2009 at 7:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
irishemporia;
no double dog dares here. Ask YOUR doctor about 2nd hand smoke . Just ask, tell him/her you won't hold it against them, just ASK.
See what they say!
Steve-O
January 21, 2009 at 9:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
and we now have a first term senator from Mission kansas district That seems to know how to save the Kansas budget.
Tell me now, how can we save 200 million dollars in medicaid payments
due to smoking related illnesses, when acording to the secratery of REVENUE we are bringing in over 500 million,(ONE HALF a BILLION) DOLLARS in cigarette taxes & settlement monies.
Thesr anti-rights people will stop at nothing to get their agenda passed.
Steve-O
January 21, 2009 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Irish; Any reputable doctor will tell the jury is out on 2nd hand smoke. Any doctor that doesn't is a quack! That is from a "estimated" finding that I "researched" and the "probability "that I am wrong is only 50%. That is give or take 20% on a scientific scale. Of course my study could be 100% off because it was funded by the Liquor industry.
Steve-O
January 21, 2009 at 10:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
and ask our esteemed Senator Barnett who paid for his last covention trip to study smoking and 2nd hand smoke ?
Could it be Johnson& Johnson the makers of nicorette?
Not for sure, just asking.
January 21, 2009 at 10:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
irishemporia- And all other ban smoking advocates and supporters. Here's a suggestion for you, why don't you ask the newest Kansas congressman from Mission and Senator Barnett and the rest of your elected Kansas Congressman exactly where the $505 million dollars that Kansas received from the Big Tobacco Company lawsuit settlement went for, and why a trust was not set up with it to help defray the cost of Medicaid paid treatment of so called smoke, SHS and tobacco related illnesses and exactly how much of it went into Kansas lawmakers pockets, bank accounts, etc.
So all of you smoking ban advocates and supporters need to quit trying to come up with different excuses as to why a smoking ban is needed, and quit complaining about a $200 million dollar expenditure for treating so called smoking, SHS and tobacco related illnesses, using this as another of your lame excuses for a smoking ban, when Kansas received $505 million dollars that should have been used to defray any of the Medicaid expenditures, but was not used for the purpose that it was given to Kansas to be used for ? You may thank your elected Kansas Congressmen and Congresswomen for that !
January 21, 2009 at 10:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CarolT (anonymous) says...
More than 50 studies show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, because they are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV.
http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlung...
The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since their movement began.
http://www.smokershistory.com/newview...
And it's a lie that passive smoking causes heart disease. AMI deaths in Pueblo actually ROSE the year after the smoking ban.
http://www.smokershistory.com/etshear...
January 21, 2009 at 11:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Attention!
All on here who are against a smoking ban, please go to Kansas.gov and pull up Jim Barnets e-mail send him an e-mail or two or three and let him know how you feel . Make it short and concise. Those short e-mails get read more than the long ones. It wouldn't hurt to send one to Wysongs office either. They vote for this we vote them out!
Steve-O
January 22, 2009 at 6:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Stevie Et Al: I did ask my doctor. He encouraged me to hang out wherever I found SHS IF I wanted to greatly increase my chances of having a heart attack, stroke or cancer. I don't expect you to believe so give Dr. Donney Kastner a call. His office is on the Fourth floor of the medical arts building next to the hospital.
January 22, 2009 at 6:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Remember, this is coming from the guy who, when he ran for Governor, couldn't even carry his hometown.
Just in case anyone forgot. Hey, no need to thank me, I'm here for you guys :D
January 22, 2009 at 6:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trainrech (anonymous) says...
I continue to chuckle as I read the diatribes being spouted here. Many are fixated in how poor they are being represented, but the last time I checked there were no (let me repeat, NO) people running against the incumbent commissioners.
Now the rhetoric has moved on to the state level. Will we see pro-smoking opponents running in the next election?
January 22, 2009 at 7:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
irish;
it sounds like your doctor is the right fit for you. Keep healthy.
Steve-o
January 22, 2009 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
irish
Your doc suggested you not hang out at places with shs if you want to be healthy. There is a solution we can all live with. You and I can not hang out in those places and the ones who choose to can. WOW! Could it be any simpler than that. The answer is no. None more simple.
trainrech
There are those of us that aren't "pro-smoking" as you say and are against this ban. I suggest you honestly try and see for your self why someone who is a non-smoker would be against this ban. Walk a mile in my shoes so to speak but when your done I want my shoes back.
January 22, 2009 at 9:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
State wide ban aside:
EOB will present our petition against this ban to city clerk
Susan Mendoza this coming Monday 1-26-2009 At 11:00 A.M. at the city clerks office. Have a great day Emporia!
Steve
January 22, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Irish-
You asked about experts on 2 threads here is the same answer.
Does one have to be an phd or md to be an authority on something? The reason he is an authority is that he spends his free time researching and weeding out facts among fictions, truth among lies. He is biased because he knows this alarmist ban stuff is b.s., not because he is lobbied or paid by pharm., tobacco, or government entities. Because he is not affiliated with any of the players in this game of give and take being played with smoking bans and freedoms, he offers a more no nonsense view of the debate. I just love the way you attack the straw man (Mr. Hitt's qualifications) when you don't have an answer for facts that don't support your opinion. Way to go. My philosophy of reason and argument teacher would be proud to know that people still do that. I could do the same with the anti-smoking "expert" whose phd is in Applied Mechanics, but I don't need to because the facts clearly show that the SHS scare is a hoax. The truth will set you free.
January 22, 2009 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
firefly912 (anonymous) says...
I just want to know how many millions of dollars it would save if a state wide ban got passed. Because this article is vague on the actual amount saved. Millions could only be 2 or 3 or even 10. When compared to 200 million dollars, you're looking at 1%-5%.
Don't all the extra taxes smokers pay for the cigarettes end up covering most of this expense?
If we're trying to save money, I'm sure there are better ways.
January 22, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
firefly912- The problem with coming up with exact figures on what it costs for treating smoking or SHS diseases is, when anyone goes to the doctor for a any health problem at all the first thing they are asked is do you smoke, if the answer is yes or I used to, then the cost of that treatment is counted as a smoking or smoke related illness, which is and can be used, as the smoking ban supporters do, to inflate and distort the so called smoking and SHS treatment cost amounts.
You don't really believe that every penny of the extra taxes that is collected from smokers goes to cover smoking or SHS treatment related expenses, do you ?
January 22, 2009 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
Using health care statistics is not a good argument to support a smoking ban. There are many other "statistics" that have a bigger impact on the cost of health care than smoking and especially second hand smoke (obesity, alcohol, motor vehicle/motor cycle, abortions to name a few).
I do feel that smokers need to be more responsible and considerate of others (by the way, me and my wife both are smokers). I'm not in favor of a state wide smoking ban, not because I'm a smoker, but rather this is something we should be able to manage without spending money on enforcement and unnecessary government involvement. I don't smoke when I'm in-doors (except at home, if the kids aren't in the house), I think other smokers should be able to do the same.
January 22, 2009 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
So is Mr hitt's comments fact or opinion. Unless he can qualify his position, I vote opinion.
January 22, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
I'm going to say fact Irish, and for good reason.
He cites his sources. You can go look it up firsthand if you don't believe the guy.
January 22, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
birch (anonymous) says...
Let's ban all alcohol, too!!
January 22, 2009 at 1:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
birch,
I'm with you man! Let's also ban;
fast food
television
radio
cars
planes
trains
your right to vote
your right to speak your mind
your right to freedom.
your right to choose.
Let's just do it all right now instead of these petty little bans one at a time.
Great idea!
Steve
January 22, 2009 at 1:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Isn't it interesting that the mere mention of banning alcohol brings ole cracky into the frey!
Steve
January 22, 2009 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Crack,
Use of cigarettes in a manner that is dangerous to the public is already illegal.
I missed you beautiful!
January 22, 2009 at 1:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trainrech (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks -
Admittedly, "Pro-smoking" was a poor choice of words on my part, but I still stand behind my comment that all those who feel they are being misrepresented need to put their money where their mouth is and run for one of the 3 open seats on the commission.
My folks live in Iowa which has enacted a state-wide ban. I've been up there several times since the ban went into effect last summer (July, I believe) and have yet to here a negative comment, nor have I heard of an establishment going out of business as a direct result of the smoking ban.
I was originally against the ban and would have voted accordingly. But after seeing the positive results in Iowa I have seen for myself the reason this ban is a good thing.
January 22, 2009 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Well, I for one did not miss crackinsack or her comments.
Even after just this recent comment by crackinsack, I am already starting to go cross-eyed and feel unhealthy !
Maybe we should ban crackinsack as a health hazard !
January 22, 2009 at 2:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Hey!!!!!!
Just because you GUYS don't want to claim crack, doesn't mean we women do either.
January 22, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Because most men would have recognized a long time ago that their posts were not effective nor respected and would have given up a long time ago. No disrespect meant to other women on here, I think most will agree that alot of women don't/won't give up.
January 22, 2009 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
ouch!
January 22, 2009 at 5 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
owww, low blow.......
January 22, 2009 at 5:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
I don't believe crack is a woman, but all the guys think so because they don't want crack to be a man. Also, neighbor, most of the posters on this forum--user names we know from all these ban forums--are men who haven't given up.
January 22, 2009 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Crackinsack;
Who Cares?
January 22, 2009 at 5:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Anyhow, I wasn't even being serious. If it didn't come off as funny, I apologize to everyone--even crackinsack.
January 22, 2009 at 7:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
"are men who haven't given up."
You'll notice she seldom responds to those who put up a good debate but she constantly rattles the cages of those who repeat the same stuff over and over.(I've encountered many like her)
If we were to start a pool to see who could best describe her, I'd be willing to put money on crack being a female, 30-40 yrs old, possibly a former smoker(they're the worst about being holier than thou about smoking)
January 22, 2009 at 10:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
neighbor:
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I was just trying out my "sarcastic shoes" earlier and I really don't want to pursue a serious line of profiling here.
Smoking ban: I do not understand how this can be the only product out there that is so harmful that the law has to keep citizens away from it because they aren't capable of doing that for themselves, and yet it is safe enough to be legally produced.
I talked to my doctor and he advised me that I shouldn't order everything on the menu just because I wanted the convenience of having it there in case I wanted to eat it. He said it was gluttony and very unhealthy (my accountant verified that for my finances as well). Is it really such a bad thing if there are restaurants in operation that we don't eat at because we don't like the atmosphere? Why are there some that want every restaurant to be required to have the atmosphere they want just in case they want to go there? The real motivation behind this becomes apparent when some take it so far as to apply it to private clubs too. The message becomes very clearly, "I don't want to be left out of anywhere or let you have anything that I don't like." I remember some cliques back in my school days that acted the same about every square inch of the playground.
January 22, 2009 at 11:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
neighbor- I will have to disagree with your comment about former smokers being holier than thou. I am a former smoker, my son smokes, my daughter smokes, my daughter in law smokes and I have no problem with them smoking and they have no problem not smoking around me, it is there free choice to choose to smoke and I respect their right to choose to smoke or not smoke. Just as I have the right to, to choose, to enter or not enter a place that allows smoking, that is known as mutual respect of a persons rights. Mutual respect of a persons, personal right to choose how to live their life or operate their business, is what this issue is really all about and I believe everyone realizes that it is about rights and mutual respect of each others personal right of freedom of choice.
January 23, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
methusla
Your last post was great! That is exactly how I feel. I too am an ex-smoker and don't look down on those that still do. I also realize that this isn't really a health issue because the small amount of exposure one gets while visiting a bar or restaurant isn't what causes the problems in all the studies people post on here. As far as the government saving money on health care, Ha Ha Ha Ha. Never going to happen. Even If they did they wouldn't admit because then we tax payers might want some of that money back. I just wish someone would be honest about their true intensions with this ban. I know wish in one hand and...................................
January 23, 2009 at 9 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
As I was getting ready for the day, I was pondering the variety of arguments about this whole SHS issue. I do really try to feel the other sides feelings about this to try and figure out why they think they way they do. About the only pro-ban veiwpoint that I can grasp is that of parents who don't want their families exposed in restaurants. While I personally don't think it's that big of a problem to turn the family around, get back in the car and find a non-smoking restaurant, this seems to be a HUGE roadblock for many of them. They don't seem to be able to grasp that concept. So!! What to do? It struck me that just as the State made seat belt and safety seat laws for those parents who wouldn't voluntarily take the hint after being educated about the increased safety benefits, maybe we do need to pass a law that helps them understand where to take and not take their families. Could it work to outlaw entrance of minors into smoking-allowed establishments? The benefits I see, are that we put a social more on SHS to warn patrons and applicants of legal age,while allowing the free market economy to dictate to owners where their business is and is not. I don't see this as necessary, but in a day and age when so many citizens expect the government to do all their choice-making and safe-keeping for them, it may be required. Thoughts?
January 23, 2009 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
trainrech;
try googling Iowa Smoking ban, to see some results of that state ban,(both good and Bad). I find it hard to believe you hadn't heard 1 negative comment on it.
Steve
January 23, 2009 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I don't know oh4theluvof, The way Government is being run right now do you really want them "Educating Us?" Our State is milions in debt and our home town senator wan'ts to ban smoking statewide. He has been a dissapointment since he was elected; from a coffin in the capitol to registering kegs of beer. At least the others in Topeka appreciate him, he's always good for a laugh.
Steve
January 23, 2009 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof- Your idea of banning minors from restaurants, etc., may have its merits, however how do you distinguish the age of a minor ? Would you set the age of a minor at 18. And that would be no better than a smoking ban. So you see you may be an opening another can of worms, if you start imposing bans on so called minors, ergo, one sensless ban, leads to another ban and another ban and another ban, etc.,etc.
As I see it. We are all supposed to be grown, educated, reasoning, thinking adults who are supposed to be able to think, reason and choose for ourselves and have mutual respect for one anothers needs and wants. The problem seems to be that there are those who do not wish to respect the fact that everyone who is not mentally incompacitated, can, demands and has the right, and ability to think and choose for themselves. There are those people who want to force all people to think only of their needs and wants and should respect only them and their needs and wants and these people are willing to go the extreme measure of forcing laws upon all people or at the very least certain people to abide by their way of thinking and living and therein lies the present debate and problem !
oh4theluvof, I am sorry it takes me so long to say what I feel, but that is just how I am and if it sounds as though I am attacking you or your idea's or thoughts, I assure you, that is not my meaning or intention.
January 23, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Steve, the answer to your question about what I want, depends completely on what my options are. Generally, what I want is for my fellow Americans to be unselfish about their freedom of choice and to be vigilant in the accompanying responsibility: to never infringe on the rights of another citizen. However, if I only have banning minors vs. banning smokers to choose between, I'd choose banning minors. A motivating reasoning for me is that banning minors still requires some degree of responsibility of choice for those of age.
methusla:
I do not feel attacked--I asked for people's thoughts. I completely understand the can of worms to which you are referring. Please keep in mind that I find this whole thing to be ridiculous and I absolutely agree with your list of "supposed-to-be's." The thing is, though, that currently, there is a growing number of Americans that have been taught and are being taught that Republicans are evil, ergo representative democracy is old fashioned and socialist democracy aimed toward tyranny is a progressive way of thinking. Therefore, my thought was to make a law that delays that digression rather than the new ban which accelerates the digression. (Yes, my idea was to place the age at 18-just like smoking)
I don't believe I will get much feedback from ban supporters because to accept this or reject it, would nullify the claims of protecting the innocent children.
January 23, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
methusla--
you said:
"There are those people who want to force all people to think only of their needs and wants and should respect only them and their needs and wants and these people are willing to go the extreme measure of forcing laws upon all people or at the very least certain people to abide by their way of thinking and living"
That is a completely ironic statement. I can't speak for others but as for myself, I have no desire to change anyone's mind. I just want smoker's smoke to not invade my personal space or my children's personal space. Your statment amuses me because yourself and others against the ban want to "force all people to think only of their needs and wants and should respect only them and their needs and wants". For some reason, yourself and others have decided that it is more important for you to get your daily cigarette than for others to breathe clean air. You only want us to think of and respect "YOUR NEED" to smoke. And those of us who don't like it should just "abide by your way of thinking and living"
Kind of ironic don't you think??
January 23, 2009 at 2:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
slvrnblk, you said,
"I just want smoker's smoke to not invade my personal space or my children's personal space."
Is it your personal space, or my private business? Second, if you KNOW there is second-hand smoke, and you don't like second-hand smoke, and you don't want your children around SHS, what choices do you have? There are only six restaurants in town that allow smoking, the rest do not. Do you not find it feasible to go somewhere else? Maybe you could go to the business owner, with enough friends, and possibly convince him to make the place non-smoking.
This is what I find funny. CAE and smoking ban advocates are willing to spends tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars to make less than 20 businesses in Emporia submit to their will. Why not take that money and open your own smoke-free restaurant and a smoke free bar? I'll make you a heck of a deal, haha.
Matt
January 23, 2009 at 2:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Okay, scratch that last line of mine about the accepting and rejecting: my hands didn't accurately repeat the thought I was having because my attention got diverted. Apologies.
January 23, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
slvrnblk:
I don't think you thought far enough through to know what it would look like if smokers were doing the same thing in reverse. Truth is, if that were the case, smokers would be demanding that no business owner has the right to be smoke-free or even to divide the establishment into sections to help smoke-dislikers (like myself) to remain apart from them.
Matt is right--any part of a public space IS NOT your personal space. Thus the term "public." If you don't want to share germs, sounds or smoke, stay at home in your personal space.
January 23, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
svlmblck- The fact is, I do not smoke. I did smoke at one time, but quit of my own choosing, some 25 years ago. But, I do respect my fellow human beings needs and wants and will never force them unnecessarily to give up any of their rights to choose how to live their lives or operate a business they own, as they have the right to choose to do.
What is ironic is that you apparantely feel the need to have government, whether it be FEDERAL, STATE or LOCAL, make your decisions for you at the expense of the taking away the right of certain citizens, group of citizens or business owners, just because you and apparantely all ban smoking supporters do not have enough mutual respect for your fellow man or woman, to allow him or her to have a few businesses that they may go to and pursue their lawful right to, "LIFE, LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS". It is quite obvious to me that you, the CAE and the rest of the ban smoking supporters have only your own pety, selfish wants and needs as a priority, and everyone elses needs and wants can to the " H-LL !
Now don't you see the "IRONY" in that ! And again, if you didn't understand me the first time, " I DO NOT SMOKE", however I do have the ability to choose whether I want to be around smokers or patronize a business that allows smoking . I am also capabale of reading and understanding a " SMOKING ALLOWED" or " NO SMOKING ALLOWED " sign assimilate the warning and making an informed decision.
January 23, 2009 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof,
On a side note, I don't know if Steve told you, but we are turning the petitions in at 10:45 Monday at the City Clerk's Office. I don't know if you can come or not, but since you got more signatures than most, I wanted to extend the invitation.
Matt
January 23, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Thanks, Matt. Steve did tell me and I'm thinking about it, but I don't even know if it will work into the schedule--and I really don't want to be around a TV camera. Here in about three years I may have to get used to publicity for a City Commission run, but for now, I like my limited anonymity.
January 23, 2009 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Hey, if you're scared, you're scared! ;) Kidding. Well, I hope to see you there, but if not, I don't blame you. BTW, you've already got my vote, absentee ballot or not!
Matt
January 23, 2009 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Hey, you guys,
I'm not real sure on tv being there, there is a chance they might be If only Barnett doesn't pull a stunt in Topeka. I can see it now; a coffin full of beer kegs and cigaretts. Sorry about that I got sidetracked. I do think we will publically request to be put on the city commission ageneda at that time. Sure hope the city Manager is there & not at an early lunch.
Steve
January 23, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck;
YOUR STATMENT:
That is a completely ironic statement. I can't speak for others but as for myself, I have no desire to change anyone's mind. I just want smoker's smoke to not invade my personal space or my children's personal space.
TALK ABOUT IRONIC!
You just want to change the LAW, not someones mind? Aren't you the one who came up with the idea that private property is not private property if it is open to the public? You had better start worrying more about the country your Children are going to be getting than exposing them to 2nd hand smoke. Once again
"IT IS'NT A HEALTH ISSUE,
IT IS A RIGHTS ISSUE!
Steve Corbin an AMERICAN
January 23, 2009 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
heh it's the weekend!
Maybe they are home?
Call Don Hill @342-3046
Call Jim Barnett @342-5387
Let them both know you are against the statewide smoking ban.
Steve
January 23, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
methusla, I appreciate your efforts, but your last post directed at me is somewhat like preaching to the choir.
Members of the anti-smoking brigade that also happen to be former smokers themselves are whom I was referring to when I said they seem to think they are holier than thou and are the worst about judging smokers. I was NOT saying all former smokers were that way. That's the problem with text conversations, hard to display emotions and further explain yourself in real time to prevent confusion about what you meant. I have had words with former smokers who have tried to shame me into quitting like they have using similar tactics and unsubstantiated "facts" here by CAE proponents.
I agree completely with the rest of your post.
Thanks to those who have spent their own time and money on getting the petitions signed and taken care of. I plan on stopping in and paying some of it back at the two bar owners' establishments(Corbin already has made a fortune off me when he ran "My Place" back in the days when he introduced me to the Green Lizards)0h4theluvof, thanks to you for stepping up too.
January 23, 2009 at 4:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Neighbor,
I can't believe you are talking about Green Lizards. This is a PUBLIC forum that is accessible to children! Decent people don't talk about these things.
January 23, 2009 at 5:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Methusla--
I am sorry but what rights are being taken away from you?? Absolutely none is the answer. I find it amusing once again with this statement you made...
"It is quite obvious to me that you, the CAE and the rest of the ban smoking supporters have only your own pety, selfish wants and needs as a priority, and everyone elses needs and wants can to the " H-LL !"
Isn't that exactly what you are wanting. You want everyone to bow down to your petty, selfish wants and needs to smoke and everyone elses needs can go to.... (before you say again that you are a non smoker, I understand that and it is irrelevant in this argument)
Oh, and shame on me and the CAE for being concerned with other people's health.
rbow--
Yeah, I want the law to change. I want it to change because unfortunately there are a lot of smokers out there who don't realize that their second hand smoke is dangerous and aren't courteous enough to take it outside.
oh4theluvof--
I disagree. I think that the non smoker has taken abuse from the smoker for long enough and they are finally taking a stand. Sure it is ruffling a few people's feathers but I believe the majority would rather the smoker take it outside.
josies--
I agree. I can make the choice to go elsewhere and I often do. I just don't think that smoker's rights should trump mine to breathe clean air. Is it really that hard to take a cig outside?
January 23, 2009 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
I just don't think that smoker's rights should trump mine to breathe clean air. Is it really that hard to take a cig outside?
Is it that hard to stay outside to start with? The fact is there are a very limited number of places that still allow smoking. As more and more people stop smoking, those places would go non-smoking too. Why can there not be a few places left that would like to cater to smokers? They can offer services to a niche market.
You know why there aren't more non-smoking bars? They don't make money. Someday, that will change (and no, it won't be because of the ban and no other choice). The fact is that less and less people are starting to smoke and as that happens, less and less business allow people to smoke on their property. Businesses cater to their customers. Why can't the free market just continue this course and eventually all places will be non-smoking?
I also keep seeing posts on these forums about smokers being rude and blowing smoke in people's faces and that's why we need to get rid of smoking. This is not a rude smoker, this is a rude person. That person would be rude by other means if he/she didn't have a cigarette.
January 23, 2009 at 6:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
Well hello hello all.
Slvrnblck- or all who have had this complaint. Why do you go to places where people are smoking if you have this problem? Believe it or not even most smokers dont like having smoke blown in their face, so to avoid it we back away or ask the person who is smoking NICELY to put it out or walk a few steps away. Most of the time if I am confronted by a non smoker its in a rude manner i,e,"Do you mind we are standing here!"
"Hey why dont you smoke somewhere else?" "Dont you know smoking is bad for you?" "Go outside or put it out we dont smoke!"
Is so hard for most "nonsmokers" to be polite when a smoker is smoking? Here is a suggestion, "Excuse me, will you please move away a little. We dont smoke and the smoke is bothering us. Can you work with us a bit?"
In all actuallity if you have such a problem with shs you shouldn't be in a place that allows it. And if you have a problem with a smoker outside, hey lots and lots of air for you to breath away from the smoker.
January 23, 2009 at 8:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
slvmblck- I am sorry that you and the rest of the ban smoking crowd, has absolutey no businesses, such as bars, restaurants,etc., in Emporia that you can choose to go and enjoy an absolutely smoke free environment and damn those old nasty privately owned bars, private clubs and restaurents that allow smoking, because it is their right to do so, and damn those nasty dirty old smokers who have only a few bars, restaurants, etc., that allow them to have a good time and choose to smoke while having a good time.
How pathetic your logic and argument against smoking is.
What supreme authority gives you, the CAE or any other individuals or group of individuals the right to force those businesses in Emporia, especially privately owned businesses to make their business a non-smoking business and turn away or force their customers to either leave or go outside and be forced to be demeaned and feel as though they are 2nd or 3rd class citizens.
How dare you and the rest of the ban smoking bigots and hypocrits presume to place youself above anyone else or believe yourselves to have any more rights than anyone else or look down you noses at anyone else.
Please tell me just what supreme authority gives you or anyone else the right to do that ? And you or anyone else had better not try and say that it is your "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" to dictate to anyone how they should choose to live lives, because if you or anyone else does, then that makes you a hypocrit and a bigot !
Also you and others, who support a ban smoking agenda, saying you care about others peoples health is not very believable since you and all of the ban smoking supporters have singled out those who smoke and bussinesses that allow smoking and these are the only ones that this smoking ban will affect and doesn't take into account the numerous other health hazards that everyone is or my be exposed to each and every day of your, our lives. As I have said before and say again now. If health were the one and only true issue, then the proposed ban would not be titled a smoking ban, but a " BAN ON ALL POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARDS", but as it stands it is a ban that definately singles out and targets certain individuals, sector of individuals, privately owned businesses, etc., which in no uncertain terms shows parshiality, unfairness and at the most discrimination.
January 23, 2009 at 8:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
very nicely put methulsa. My argument was simply on rudeness. but i definitely agree with you.
January 23, 2009 at 9 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Here's a bit of news for all. If and when the smoking ban is enacted, Walmart is going to do away with their employee's smoking lounge, which is totally isolated from the main part of the store and put benches and tables outside the building for the employees who wish to smoke on their breaks.
I wonder how many of you non-smokers and complainers will complain because you may have to walk by a few Walmart employees who are smoking, as you complainers go to enter Walmart to shop ?
I also wonder how many lost work hours, sick pay, sick leave, etd., Walmart will have to cope with when those employees who have to go outside in all sorts of weather to smoke on their work break, will call in sick because they had to go outside and be exposed to all kinds of illness causing weather, because they no longer will have an inside employee smoking lounge ?
Oh, thats right, I forgot if they become ill or unhealthy because they had to go outside to smoke on their work break, which they are entitled to, by law, because it was cold and raining, their cold, pneumonia, sore throat, etc., will have been caused by smoking and not their exposure to the inclement weather !
How many people of the other businesses in Emporia, will become unhealthy or ill because they to were exposed to inclement weather, by having to go outside to smoke. Oh, thats right the same excuse for their illiness or sicknesses would also be blamed on the fact that they smoke.
When and if the smoking ban in enacted, and if any of the ban smoking supporters become ill because they were exposed to inclement weather or a person or family member who happens to have a cold, pneumonia, or any contagious illness, will their illness or poor health be blamed on smoking and SHS, probably, thats just the type of mentality that the ban smoking supporters posses.
But if they are not able to blame their illnesses or poor health on smoking or SHS, you can bet your bottom dollar, that they will come up with some other activity that someone is doing, that they don't like, or believe to be the cause of their or someone elses ill health. They will try to force a ban upon more and more of an individuals or bussinesses activity.
I am telling you right now, that this will become a mutating monster that won't be able to be stopped once it has begun.
January 23, 2009 at 9:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
If anyone and I do mean anyone believes that banning smoking is going to do away with or elliminate cancer, heart disease or any other health problem. You are either very badly misinformed or very naieve, as it will not make Emporia or the world disease free.
January 23, 2009 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
does anyone else think if CAE is pushing for this ban THEY should be paying for every smoke smack businesses will have to build for their employees? What many people dont realize is that many businesses have no place for smokers to go. No roof to block the rain, no walls to block wind, no heat against the cold. Lets have ever person who talks on their cell while i'm eating go outside to finish their conversation.You dont care to smell my smoke, I dont care to hear you talk.
January 23, 2009 at 9:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
oh wait, in California they have already inacted no cellphone areas in some restaraunts, uh oh
January 23, 2009 at 9:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
no matter what anyone says;
IT IS A RIGHTS ISSUE!
not a health issue
Steve Cobin, an AMERICAN
January 23, 2009 at 10:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
THATS CORBIN, sorry I was talking to my grandson.
Steve Corbin
an American
January 23, 2009 at 10:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
neighbor- If you felt that my post was in any way an attack upon you, I am sorry. But it was not ment to be an attack or did not mean any disrespect upon you, I guess I may have misunderstood your post about smokers being holier than thou. I was just trying to explain, that as a former smoker I certainly do not think I am better than anyone else, smoker or non-smoker alike.
January 23, 2009 at 10:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Matt:
".....absentee ballot or not."
Any idea yet when you have to leave or if you will be near where you were before? Also, thanks so much for the "vote" of confidence.
January 23, 2009 at 11:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
romano, nice to have you back! Did you go far? Yes, I agree that part of the price of this ban if passed is to foot the bill for compliance. It's only right that the taxpayers pay for what they want--if it ends up being what they want.
January 23, 2009 at 11:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
commonsenseemporia (anonymous) says...
In the United States, five major independent federal and private expert groups have reviewed the science of SHS and its effects on human health:
-->Surgeon General, U.S. Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
-->U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
-->National Research Council (NRC) (National Academies: --National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine)
-->California Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA)
-->National Toxicology Program (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (NIEHS/NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
Those five, and others, have concluded that SHS is a highly toxic waste product of tobacco combustion and that there is a causal relationship between exposure of non-smokers to SHS and premature disease and death. Elimination of SHS or significant reduction in exposure to SHS improves health and decreases risks for disease and death.
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense
January 24, 2009 at 7:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Does anyone else hear the crickets chirping????
January 24, 2009 at 8:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Methusla--
Do you even read my posts to you?
Their is no elitist attitude here. Unless of course you believe your own attitude and arguments to be elitist. No one's rights are being changed. People can still smoke. People can still choose to go in whatever establishment they want. Business can still run their businesses how they see fit, within the guidelines of the law.
The CAE has asked that the some of the laws be modified to address the dangers of SHS. That is all that was done, and people are making a huge fuss about it. ALL businesses are regulated for the benefit of it's patrons and employees. Sure, I disagree with some of the laws but if you step back and look at the whole situation you will see that the benefits outweigh the consequences.
And rbow--
To YOU it is a rights issue.
To ME it is a health issue.
January 24, 2009 at 8:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Well, I got up too late to make it to the eggs & issues meeting with our local lawmakers. It's probably for the best though, don't know if I could of handled Teresa &Jim in the same room. Too much 2nd hand smug is proven to cause high blood pressure and the possibility of Stroke.
Steve Corbin
An American
January 24, 2009 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck;
If you live in Emporia and drink from it's water supply do you know there are levels of arsinic in the water. What about that health issue?
Steve
January 24, 2009 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
2 completely different things. SHS is a direct result from someone else's choice that affects me and others who choose not to participate in that habit. SHS is not regulated but should be because it is harmful to everyone.
The purity of water is regulated already.
January 24, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck;
So the purity of water is regulated? By who? The government?
YOU SAID;
"SHS is not regulated but should be because it is harmful to everyone."
By who the government?
When OSHA sets the "pel levels" for SHS , ( just like they and the EPA do for water supplies), Then & only then should it be regulated.
Steve Corbin
An American
Who is tired of big government
January 24, 2009 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
slvmblck- Yes I read your posts !
Now let me see if I am understanding you and all the smoking ban supporters correctly !
You and other individuals or group of individuals, believe that you have the right to take it upon yourselves to change and rewrite existing laws, which by the way were imparshial, fair and did not infringe upon anyones personal or civil rights, you and others took it upon yourselves to attempt to force those existing laws to be rewritten to absolutey favor your way of believing and thinking without allowing a vote of the public, to give all the citizens of Emporia a chance to vote on whether or not all the citizens wanted or agree with such an unnecessary, rewriting of the existing law ? Your new law as written absolutely does remove certain personal and civil rights of a certain sector of individuals and private, club, bar and business owners, definately is the act of an individual or group of individuals who is not only, "elitist", but "tryanical", "dictatorial" and "totalitarian" as well !
And no I do not believe that I or any of the ban opponents are "elitist", "tyranical", "dictatorial" or "totalitarian", as we are only trying to defend our and everyones personl and civil rights of "FREEDOM, LIBERTY and DEMOCRACY" against such obvious and blatant attempts to remove or restrict certain of our and other individuals personal and civil rights. We, who oppose a smoking ban, are not attempting to force a rewrite or change of existing laws, that are imparshial, fair, right and do not remove certain personal and civil rights of individuals, group of individuals, private business owners, bars, clubs, etc, as you, the CAE and smoking ban supporters are attempting to do !.
January 24, 2009 at 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
SHOW ME THE "PEL"
January 24, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
Great...more meaningless nonsense copied and pasted by commonsenseemporia.
I thought we were done with all that. Guess not.
...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.
...the defense of "alarmism," "hyperbole," "exaggeration" and using "facts" that have "no scientific basis"-- is.....to mess with the minds of officials. Legislators can't, in the advocates' estimation, be properly "motivated" to set "public policy" if they're offered the simple truth, which just isn't that hairy.
...[Mayor Bloomberg's] estimate of 1000 deaths prevented is patently absurd. Our best estimate of the number of deaths prevented is somewhere between 0 and 10 to 15." The latter only included since at least "theoretically, [10 to 15] individuals with severe asthma could suffer an acute, fatal attack in a smoky bar."
...[t]here is no evidence that any New Yorkers-- patrons or employees -- has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant.
Thus the putative "10 to 15" remains in the realm of theory, the "0" remains the fact, and the "1000" remains propaganda sown by a quick -- or a dirty -- mind.
January 24, 2009 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
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.
January 24, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
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.)
January 24, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
methusla--
You crack me up. You go off on tangents and never pay attention to what other people write. I will try to break down your last comment and address each part as clearly as possible for you...
you said:
"You and other individuals or group of individuals, believe that you have the right to take it upon yourselves to change and rewrite existing laws"
Absolutely and so do you. Corbin and others are doing the exact same thing. There was a new ordinance passed that they don't agree with so they are challenging it. Good for them. I commend them for it. I don't have to agree with him but at least he/they are getting off their butts and doing something about it.
"which by the way were imparshial, fair and did not infringe upon anyones personal or civil rights"
That is your opinion, not mine.
"you and others took it upon yourselves to attempt to force those existing laws to be rewritten to absolutey favor your way of believing and thinking without allowing a vote of the public, to give all the citizens of Emporia a chance to vote on whether or not all the citizens wanted or agree with such an unnecessary, rewriting of the existing law"
I did no such thing. I applaud CAE's efforts but I did not do a single thing for them. And, I have said many times that I believe it should have and still should go to a public vote. And since when does ALL THE CITIZENS need to agree on a law. Majority rules.
"Your new law as written absolutely does remove certain personal and civil rights of a certain sector of individuals and private, club, bar and business owners"
I posted earlier that no one's rights were being taken away. I still do not see one single right that was removed by this law.
"And no I do not believe that I or any of the ban opponents are "elitist", "tyranical", "dictatorial" or "totalitarian". "
Why because your way of thinking is better than mine?? Because that was the way it was, so it is right?? Please! With your line of thinking blacks would still be slaves and women would only be allowed to work in the home.
Don't be so afraid of change that it scares you away from logic.
January 24, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Surely slvrnblck your not saying that we shouldn't question "change"? Some change is good some is not. I for one am getting tired of the mindless tag line "change". Can we not use our brains and consider if the previous laws were sufficient or not. I for one never had an ounce of difficulty keeping my family away from places with shs, it really is just not that dificult. So I don't really see a need for it. There are existing laws(methusla posted them in another thread it may even be this one, I'm sure he'd post it again on this thread if need be) and I feel they were sufficient. There is also the fact that education on the dangers of smoking is working and fewer people are starting to smoke and more are quitting. This is diminishing the demand for smoking allowed establishments, as the owner feels their customers are are "demanding" a smoke free place they will make it so. That is their right as a business owner to do so. I feel as long as the demand is there they(especially bar owners) should be allowed the right to supply their customers with that demand. I believe I've read on these forums that there was a bar here in town that tested the waters of a smoke free bar and found that it wasn't profitable at this time, that indicates that the demand isn't there at least not enough to be profitable. See a business needs to be profitable so the owner and the employees can pay for such things as food and shelter not just because they are greedy capitalists. Then there is always the arguement that this ban doesn't even address most of the dangers of shs. Most of the health risks are from prolonged exposure not occasional exposure like one would get from visiting a bar or restaurant. Then there is the "what's next" factor. If this is a health issue and costs our socialist systems too much money what is the next health and cost savings idea? What about suntanning? It causes skin cancer no? What about casual sex? HPV causes cervical cancer and is spread by casual sex. What about fast food? Causes obesity and all kinds of health problems that cost our socialist systems tons(pun intended) of money. I'm not opposed to change our a healthy society but as a mechanic I believe it ain't broke don't fix it and the current laws(pre ban) are working fine. Speaking of health I need to stop typing and go workout.
January 24, 2009 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks--
You make good arguments and no I would never meant to imply that we shouldn't question change.
To address a few of your comments, fast food, suntanning and casual sex are all potentially harmful but they are all activies that one chooses to do that affects no one but themselve. The activity of smoking releases a harmful byproduct into the air that everyone has to share. So if you and I are in the same room it makes no difference if I choose to eat at McDonalds because the effect on you is zero. However, if you decide to light up I am forced (by the need for oxygen) to breathe in your SHS.
I agree with you that less and less people are smoking but that still does not eliminate the problem. Are we all just supposed to sit around and wait for the next 50 or 100 years for smoking to be non-existant, before we become concerned with the affects it has to our health?
And, I understand your point about the businesses. They should be able to sell the items they choose, and price the how they want, but there should still be rules in place, and there are a lot of them, that protect the patrons and employees of that business.
January 24, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
"I posted earlier that no one's rights were being taken away. I still do not see one single right that was removed by this law."--slvrnblk
Under current laws, a business owner has the right to start as or convert their business to private membership that allows smoking. How much do you know about the Eagles Club? While I don't think that environment is the healthiest, it is their choice to be members and attend. New ban=right lost.
What if the Burgess's, for example, wanted to make it very clear to the public that they want to cater to smokers (I am not speaking for them, this is just a hypothetical example that comes to mind). Under the current laws they could privatize and allow membership to smokers and individuals who signed a membership agreement that states that they understand and are okay that they will be in an SHS environment. New ban =lost right
It's only one single example, but now you can see it, I hope.
"With your line of thinking blacks would still be slaves and women would only be allowed to work in the home."--slvrnblk
The laws that changed for those circumstances lifted up groups of people that were being held down. This new ban pushes groups of people (business owners and smokers) down from the equality they currently possess.
And according to your last post to me, you disagree. Disagree with the scenario of how this would look if smokers were doing this in reverse, or disagree with public space not being personal?
I didn't understand how your view of smokers being abusive addressed either of my points.
January 24, 2009 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Hey, Lackofsense,
"The lion's share of lung cancer still comes from the business end of a cigarette, and avoiding tobacco smoke either by quitting or, IF YOU'RE A NON-SMOKER, STAYING AWAY FROM THE SMOKERS, remains the number one way to steer clear of the disease." (emphasis mine)
1. The American Association for Respiratory Care (AARC) http://www.aarc.org/media_center/pres... (this is a primary source, FYI)
January 24, 2009 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
commonsenseemporia (anonymous) says...
According to the American Cancer Society, the workplace is a major source of secondhand smoke exposure for adults.
Secondhand smoke meets the standard to be classified as a potential cancer-causing agent by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the federal agency responsible for health and safety regulations in the workplace.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), another federal agency, also recommends that secondhand smoke be considered a possible carcinogen in the workplace. Because there are no known safe levels, they recommend that exposures to secondhand smoke be reduced to the lowest possible levels.
Secondhand smoke in the workplace has been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and lung cancer among adult non-smokers.
The Surgeon General has said that smoke-free workplace policies are the only way to do away with secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace. Separating smokers from non-smokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating the building cannot prevent exposure if people still smoke inside the building. An extra bonus besides protecting non-smokers is that workplace smoking restrictions may also encourage smokers to quit.
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense
Source: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/con...
January 24, 2009 at 12:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck
"To address a few of your comments, fast food, suntanning and casual sex are all potentially harmful but they are all activies that one chooses to do that affects no one but themselve."
Oh contrare monfrare!
If they are going to bring the cost of health care into the debate then all these things in fact do affect all of us because of the socialist systems that will take care of these issues that we all pay for.
"However, if you decide to light up I am forced (by the need for oxygen) to breathe in your SHS."(I don't smoke by the way.)
You are absolutely not forced to breath smoke. You can simply walk away(by use of your feet). There are only a few restaurants in this town that still allow smoking so to avoid it is really easy, this is due to the shrinking demand that I mentioned before. It hasn't taken nearly 50 or 100 yrs to get this far so your example is wildly exaggerated.
January 24, 2009 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
commonsenseemporia (anonymous) says...
According to the American Association for Respiratory Care, one of the biggest and most preventable causes of lung cancer in nonsmokers, however, is secondhand smoke. Up to 6,000 nonsmokers die from lung cancer every year due to secondhand smoke exposure. By comparison, researchers estimate radon, the second largest cause of lung cancer overall, kills around 3,000 nonsmokers annually.
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense
Source: http://www.aarc.org/media_center/pres...
January 24, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Oh I almost forgot the fact that STDs do affect more than just one person. As Billy Madison said, "It takes more than two to tango......or somethin' like than."
January 24, 2009 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
SLVRNBLCK;
Here is a copy/paste from an article I hope you are familier with:
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The right I am talking about is
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I haven't got any compensation, where's my check?
Steve
January 24, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"IF YOU'RE A NON-SMOKER, STAYING AWAY FROM THE SMOKERS, remains the number one way to steer clear of the disease."
January 24, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
commonsenseemporia copied and pasted, "According to the American Cancer Society, the workplace is a major source of secondhand smoke exposure for adults."
The truth is, according to a 2003 study by the same American Cancer Society, "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."
commonsenseemporia also copied and pasted, "Secondhand smoke meets the standard to be classified as a potential cancer-causing agent by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the federal agency responsible for health and safety regulations in the workplace."
The truth is, OSHA has stated outright that:
"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
January 24, 2009 at 1:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
commonsenseemporia copied and pasted, "Up to 6,000 nonsmokers die from lung cancer every year due to secondhand smoke exposure."
I call BS. The article referenced does not provide ANY sort of scientific evidence to back up this nonsense claim.
Show me the studies that resulted in this preposterous number, otherwise, 6,000 deaths per year due to 2nd hand smoke exposure is pure unsubstantiated BS.
January 24, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
MisterO, let me see if I have this straight.
The CLean Air People (The CLAP) spent tens of thousands of dollars to pass a law that forbids the use of a legal product in a private business, because of the dangers of second-hand smoke? But OSHA says that "it would be very rare to find a workplace" that is polluted, and no air studies were conducted in Emporia? And they also lack the common sense to stay away from second-hand smoke, even though that is the advice given by The American Association for Respiratory Care? If the above are true, I ask you sir...
WHAT THE HELL IS REALLY GOING ON?
January 24, 2009 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Forgot to add above:
And this ban might negatively impact the bar business, so they are doing this during the worst economic downturn since the great depression?
January 24, 2009 at 1:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
Josisbar asks: "WHAT THE HELL IS REALLY GOING ON?"
I think we all know exactly what is going on. The country club crusaders believe we are all too stupid to make informed decisions on our own, so they want to take away our right to choose.
It is NOT about public health.
January 24, 2009 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
First of all, I am only speaking for myself, not for the CAE or anyone else who is for the ban. I don't mind someone generalizing and including me because I do the same but like I said I cannot and won't speak on behalf of anyone else. That is for them to do.
ohforthelove--
I was referring to your comment about how I didn't think it through far enough.
Also to address your comment about rights being lost. There are still no rights being lost other than having to obey the laws in place. The owner can still cater to certain clientele, serve what they want and how they want, set their prices, etc., as long as it is within the confines of the law. As I have stated before there are already lots of laws that businesses have to comply with that are in place for the benefit of the public. This is no different. So, no RIGHT was taken away.
Also, you said:
"The laws that changed for those circumstances lifted up groups of people that were being held down. This new ban pushes groups of people (business owners and smokers) down from the equality they currently possess."
In your opinion the nonsmokers are not being held down. In mine, they are. The nonsmoker is having to breathe in harmful byproducts from smokers, just to accomodate a smoker's habit. I don't care if you smoke just don't make me. And what equality are you talking about. It is not fair or equal that a smoker gets to decide for others the quality of their air.
January 24, 2009 at 2:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the city of Emporia took your building over. I just thought they enacted a law that you have to follow. Just like the hundreds of other ones you have to follow. If they change the speeding law down to 40 mph are you going to ask for compensation for your car??
January 24, 2009 at 2:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
slmvblck- Here are the definitions of the 4 words I used in my previous statement !
to⋅tal⋅i⋅tar⋅i⋅an /toʊˌtælɪˈtɛəriən/ S Pronunciation [toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uhn]
–adjective 1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
ty·ran·ni·cal
Pronunciation: \tə-ˈra-ni-kəl
Date: 15th century
: being or characteristic of a tyrant or tyranny : despotic
tyr·an·ny
1: oppressive power ; especially : oppressive power exerted by government.
dic·ta·to·ri·al (dkt-tôr-l, -tr-)
adj.
1. Tending to dictate; domineering.
2. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a dictator or dictatorship; autocratic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dicta·tori·al·ly adv.
Synonyms: dictatorial, authoritarian, dogmatic, doctrinaire, imperious, overbearing
These adjectives mean asserting or tending to assert one's authority or to impose one's will on others.
Any one or all of these words, by their definitions, will fit what the clean air colation, the CAE and those who support such actions, as the implementation by force, a smoking ban or any other ban which denies any individual citizen, group of citizens, etc. their lawful personal and civil right of living their life or running their businesses as they so choose to do.
I guess when it comes to the people who are determined to force their will, way of thinking, beliefs, needs and wants and way of living upon all the people of Emporia, the very things that mean so much to all the people or at least some of the people in Emporia and the UNITED STATES, namely " PERSONAL RIGHTS, LIBERTY , FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY, mean absolutely nothing to the CAE and its supporters, because they give no second or first thoughts to the trampling or disregarding the the very things that make the UNITED STATES , a great country.
January 24, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck posted, "...So, no RIGHT was taken away."
You are wrong.
As I've posted in other threads on this topic:
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.
You may refuse to see it in this light, but that doesn't mean the right to choose wasn't taken away. It was.
It also takes away the right of an individual business owner to decide whether or not they will allow a legal activity in their establishment.
January 24, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
"Up to 6,000 nonsmokers die from lung cancer every year due to secondhand smoke exposure."
LMAO, what a stretch. I challenge you to show us one death certificate or autopsy report that makes that claim the SHS caused any death or cancer. You won't find one single such piece of proof in existence nor a competent medical professional that would put his professional credibility on line signing such a document.
January 24, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks--
you said:
"Oh contrare monfrare!
If they are going to bring the cost of health care into the debate then all these things in fact do affect all of us because of the socialist systems that will take care of these issues that we all pay for."
I didn't bring that argument into the debate. I just said that SHS is not the same thing as fast food. One affects only the user, the other affects all around it.
you also said
"You are absolutely not forced to breath smoke. You can simply walk away(by use of your feet). There are only a few restaurants in this town that still allow smoking so to avoid it is really easy, this is due to the shrinking demand that I mentioned before. It hasn't taken nearly 50 or 100 yrs to get this far so your example is wildly exaggerated."
So you are saying that I could be sitting there minding my own business when another patron decides to light up and blow their smoke around and I should be the one forced to get up? My choice was to mind my own business. The other patron's choice was to pollute the air that affects everyone. Doesn't seem quite fair to me. Someone said a while back, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
January 24, 2009 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
methusla--
Once again....
How is a smoker not "implementing their will on others" by blowing SHS in the air?
January 24, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
slvr,
If you are in a place where smoking is allowed (one of the ~15 places in town), but you don't like SHS in the air, what's wrong with this scenario? Wouldn't it be easier for you to go to one of the 50+ places in town that are smoke free? Or does every place in town have to ignore their clientele to please you?
January 24, 2009 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
mister O--
you said:
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.
You may refuse to see it in this light, but that doesn't mean the right to choose wasn't taken away. It was.
It also takes away the right of an individual business owner to decide whether or not they will allow a legal activity in their establishment"
Sorry, but you are wrong....you are still able to choose whether or not to enter that establishment. Are 21 and over bars taking away the rights of 18 year olds?
Business owners do not have rights to do whatever they please.
January 24, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
josies--
So once again, I should be the one to leave because I did what exactly??
The smoker is the one who is changing the establishment's enviornment.
January 24, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Matt
Thank you! I was going to say the same thing. slvr if you don't want to be around when someone lights up DON'T GO THERE! It is seriously not that difficult! It has been pointed out numerous times that most places in this town are smoke free and I have never seen anyone light up in one that is smoke free!
"Oh contrare monfrare!
If they are going to bring the cost of health care into the debate then all these things in fact do affect all of us because of the socialist systems that will take care of these issues that we all pay for."
"I didn't bring that argument into the debate. I just said that SHS is not the same thing as fast food. One affects only the user, the other affects all around it."
I never said you brought up that argument, I believe I said "they". I was trying to show you that the arguments for this smoking ban are going to set precedents for any wacko that has a "legitimate" concern about their pet peeve to get a group together and ban it. And since the definition of what a right is or isn't is apparently defined by anyone's whim(as you have proven) then nothing is safe.
January 24, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck posted, "Sorry, but you are wrong....you are still able to choose whether or not to enter that establishment."
Sorry, yourself. Go back and read what I said. I said, "We may all choose whether or not to enter an establishment that allows smoking."
Take away those establishments (that allow smoking), and you take away our right to choose to enter them.
Again, you may refuse to see it that way, that that doesn't change the fact that our right to choose has been taken away.
The rest of your post is irrelevant.
January 24, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
"So you are saying that I could be sitting there minding my own business when another patron decides to light up and blow their smoke around and I should be the one forced to get up?"--slvrnblk
Yes!! Just because you were "minding your own business" doesn't mean that the environment conforms to your preferences. If the OWNER has allowed smoking in their building, the smoker is not infringing on your rights. Going into a restaurant or bar that allows smoking but isn't being smoked in at the time and then getting offended when another patron lights up is like going into the ocean when a jellyfish isn't close by and then getting offended when one appears and stings you. And if one appears and hasn't stung you yet, do you stubbornly stay in the water insisting that you were there first, minding your own business? You had to know of the possibility and yet you entered anyway. A risk you chose to take. If you are adamantly opposed to getting stung by a jellyfish, stay out of their ocean. If you are adamantly opposed to being around SHS, stay out of a place of business that the owners have made available for smokers to smoke in while having a meal and/or drink. How could this be more simple?
"The smoker is the one who is changing the establishment's envi(ro)nment."--slvrnblk
The smoker isn't changing the environment. The environment has already been established by the owner.
January 24, 2009 at 4:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
I guess that is where our difference of opinion begins. You think it is ok to knowingly dispense a harmful byproduct in the air in a confined area that is dangerous for everyone in order to feed your addicition. You are benefitting no one, including yourself but still choose to do so when you know it harms others.
January 24, 2009 at 4:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck-"Oh contrare monfrare!
If they are going to bring the cost of health care into the debate then all these things in fact do affect all of us because of the socialist systems that will take care of these issues that we all pay for."
I didn't bring that argument into the debate. I just said that SHS is not the same thing as fast food. One affects only the user, the other affects all around it."
Fast food is worse than SHS by all studies. There has never been one study that proves without the shout of a doubt that shs WILL cause death or disease. Now I'm not sayin its healthy for you. Now look at the #1 disease affecting Americans today, OBESITY. Obesity has been proven to be a legitimate cause of death. How does fast food not affect others? Sure you pay for the burgers but aren't the fast food places selling them? Now I'm not knocking fast food completely, I enjoy a two minute burger as much as the next guy, but draw a line. To say that SHS affects everyone and cholesterol doesn't is crazy. The owner of a fast food store affects everyone who patrons there. Heart disease, High cholesterol, High Blood pressure, obesity, all are (just for commonsense) LINKED to fast food establishments.
Oh and the little tidbit about consentual sex not affecting the other person, herpes, chlamydia, HIV, ringing any bells? STD's outrank medical costs of smoking by a marginal number. You can quit smoking and improve your health, the STD well that a gift that will stick with you for live, as will the exams and medications. Unless you dont take the medication or have the exam, in that case you Definitaly affect the other person, and the other person, and they affect another person.
January 24, 2009 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
romano--
Did you read my post?
In a room of 10 people where 1 person smokes. That one person smoking affects all 10. If I am the one person in a room of 10 that eats a cheeseburger, my cholesterol is increased. Not the other 9 people.
January 24, 2009 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Oh and the part about consentual sex....if I walk by someone with an STD it does not affect me. It only affects me if I have sex with them.
January 24, 2009 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
slvrnblk
You better not have been talking to me with that 4:59 post. I DO NOT SMOKE; I DO NOT GO TO SHS ENVIRONMENTS. The owners of smoking establishments don't make money off of me and I don't get exposed. I think that is a fair trade and I'm okay with it. If the owner is allowing a POSSIBLY highly dangerous byproduct in their air that they wish to share with others who choose to dispense it and breathe it, that is their business. When they start LOSING business from not having enough customers, then they will close or change the environment of their business. I don't bungee jump, ride four wheelers, swim in the ocean, parachute or race cars because I don't like to die or get seriously injured. I don't eat seafood or hang out in shs environments because I find them both unpleasant. However, unlike you, I do not feel the need to remove the right to do any one of those things from others who wish to do them.
Like Mister O has asked: "Show me three!"
Until then, talk to me about things that are indisputable, verifiable, solid fact killers.
January 24, 2009 at 5:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
I'm sorry, the 4:31 post is what I was referring to.
January 24, 2009 at 5:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Actually I was referring to you. For whatever reason you seem to believe that it is ok for smokers to harm others with their byproduct, I don't. I guess it is a difference of opinion.
And, like I said, I am not removing the rights of anyone.
I must have missed Mister O's request for "Show me three" I am not sure what he is referring to. If you help me out I would be more than happy to try to help out.
January 24, 2009 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
I think it's okay for them to smoke around others who are willing to take the risk. The other patrons have to be willing to take the risk to go there or they shouldn't go.
"Show me Three" was actual deaths indisputably, verifiably and unequivocally caused by SHS.
January 24, 2009 at 5:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck posted, "You think it is ok to knowingly dispense a harmful byproduct in the air in a confined area that is dangerous for everyone"
and
"For whatever reason you seem to believe that it is ok for smokers to harm others with their byproduct,"
The truth is:
"In 1981 and again in 1988, the American Cancer Society did two major US studies (CPS-1 and CPS-2) and "major" means major: the first studied 1 million people, the second. 1.2. In addition to looking into the correlations of secondhand smoke and lung cancer, it also looked for links to heart disease. And found no connection. In either study."
"Further, the subjects from CPS-1 continued to be followed through 1998, for a total of 39 years. Focusing on a large (35,561 subject) subset of California never-smokers married to smokers for the full period, a statistical analysis, peer-reviewed and published in the British Medical Journal in 2003, repeated these results-- showing incontrovertibly (0.97 @ 95% confidence) that there was no increased risk of coronary heart disease from lifelong exposure to secondhand smoke."
This was a study by the American Cancer Society. It tracked 35,000 people over a period of 39 years and found NO connection between 2nd hand smoke and cancer or heart disease.
January 24, 2009 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
As many people have posted there are many diseases and health complications involved with smoke. Emphasema, lung cancer, and heart disease to name a few. I don't think that you will find many if any Drs. that will say that anyone who dies from these terrible diseases contracted the disease with absolute certainty from SHS, but I would bet that you would get many of them to say that SHS contributed to it.
January 24, 2009 at 5:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck- In a room of 10 people where 1 person smokes. That one person smoking affects all 10.
if you are with nine people who dont smoke, if you are with 1000 people who dont smoke and you all go an establisment that allows smoking, and a patron is smoking, either leave or dont go to begin with. You immediately lose you argument for being in a place that ALLOWS smoking. Just because you dont smoke doesnt mean the rules change for you, if the owner deemed it appropriate for people to smoke in his/her business then you have no ground to stand on.
As for the STD argument- Did you know you can contract an STD from doorknobs? It's true. If the person with the disease doesnt wash, and isn't on preventive medicine you can get the disease simply by touching something they touched. I'd say that would affect you. But hey your chances of that happening are a lot like your chances of disease from SHS. Imagine that.
January 24, 2009 at 6:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Mister O
And many people have posted many other reports showing that SHS is harmful. I think that you will not find many if any Drs. or scientists who will say that SHS is not harmful with 100% certainty.
January 24, 2009 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
Does obesity contribute? How about age? Diet? Lack of exercise? Maybe a pound of cheese? Chemicals from work?
January 24, 2009 at 6:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
romano--
First of all you can not get an STD from a doorknob, so your arguement is irrelevant.
And like I have said business owners can not do as they please. They are regulated in many ways. They have a responsibility to protect their patrons and the government has rules and regulations in place to assure that they do.
January 24, 2009 at 6:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
HERE IS AN OPEN INVITATION TO slvrnblck or any other NUT, yes NUT, worried about SHS in MY Bar.
type in how to file a complaint with OSHA on the internet.
Anyone can file, free of charge, and on line. Please someone file a complaint to protect my workers and the customers, Let's see how quick OSHA responds. I promise I will abide by their directives, as they pertain to my property. Come on you idiots, the ball is now in your court.
Steve Corbin
An American
January 24, 2009 at 6:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
go steve!
January 24, 2009 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Yes all of those things can contribute also but only one of the things mentioned can be caused from someone else.
January 24, 2009 at 6:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Steve--
I am not attacking you or judging you. Actually, like I said earlier, I commend you and Matt and others for standing up for what you believe in. I find it great that you invite people who are with you and against you to your establishment to debate with you. I have been in your bar a number of times and have always been treated with respect. I just happen to have a different opinion than you. I have been to non smoking bars in Lawrence and elsewhere and have enjoyed myself much more than when I am in a smoking establishment. My personal preference is to be in non smoking establishments and I, maybe greedily, think that I should not be limited in my choices because someone else chooses to smoke. If you smoke you should take it outside because you are affecting others....period.
January 24, 2009 at 6:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
no, no, no, please someone file a complaint with osha against my bar. Teresa, Bobbie, someone just do it .Please protect my Employees?
please, please please?
Steve Corbin owner
TownRoyal.........The address is 405 commercial St emporia, kansas 66801 And i have 4 employees that really need your help
Put your money where your mouth is when you spout off about SHS being toxic. Let's get osha into town to measure this sh-- and get it over with one way or another.
January 24, 2009 at 6:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
Simple truth is, we don't always get what we want. Not trying to sound rude, but IF YOU DONT LIKE SMOKE, STAY AWAY FROM SMOKING ALLOWED ESTABLISHMENTS. I realize WE are being greedy but hey, we don't know any better right?
January 24, 2009 at 7:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
slvrncrck
you said,"My personal preference is to be in non smoking establishments and I, maybe greedily, think that I should not be limited in my choices because someone else chooses to smoke." Right now your choices are limited and so are the smokers. When the ban is in effect your choices are unlimited while the smokers choices are zero. Well the first part isn't entirely true because your choices are unlimited now, you just have to take the smoke into account while choosing whether or not to go into a few places. You are very selfish, that's what it really boils down to.
January 24, 2009 at 7:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Slvr,
Let me get this straight. You want to be able to go into every single place in town and not smell cigarettes? Am I getting this right? Because I want to be able to go into every single place in town and smoke. I already KNOW that isn't going to happen. If I go into a non-smoking place, and want to smoke, I know that I can't because that is the owner of the business's choice. But you, and the rest of the ban proponents want every single business in town to cater to you. I KNOW every business in town won't cater to me, and I don't expect them to. Guess what! The businesses that don't cater to, I DON'T GO THERE! I REALIZE that this is a VERY hard concept to grasp, but maybe a little understanding on YOUR part would go a LONG way!
Matt
January 24, 2009 at 7:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
slvmblck- First, do the definitions of these words, elitist", "tyranical", "dictatorial" or "totalitarian, sound familiar to anything that has to do with the current issue or smoking ban !
Also you asked me the following, methusla--
Once again....
How is a smoker not "implementing their will on others" by blowing SHS in the air?
Like it or not here is my answer !
A smoker is not implementing their will on others, because smokers are not forcing anyone to be around smoking or SHS, by trying to pass a law that forces everyone who does not smoke, to be around anyone who smokes or force anyone who does not like smoke, smoking or SHS to stay anywhere that allows smoking and the most important of all is, if you don't like the smoke and SHS you will still have the " RIGHT" to choose to stay or leave and if you choose to leave you will not be punished by being fined.
However the smoking ban, proposed by the CAE, does force their will upon just those who smoke by forcing the implementation of a law, that forces anyone who wishes to smoke in a privately owned, club, bar, restaurant, etc. to leave the premasis and endure all kinds of enclement weather, be treated as a 2nd or 3rd class citizen, also someone who smokes absolutely does not or will not have the same " RIGHT" to freedom of choice to stay or leave. According to the CAEs' smoking ban that person who wishes to smoke must leave the premesis, stand in an alley, parking lot, sidewalk, street, etc. no closer than 10 or 20 feet from the establishments doors or windows and that smoker does not comply, they will have to pay a fine !
So, you see the non-smoker loses nothing in the way of his/her " RIGHT" to freedom of choice. However the small sector of individuals and privately owned businesses that this rediculously stupid smoking ban targets, loses or will lose, everything and the most important loss will be their "RIGHT" to freedom of choice.
January 24, 2009 at 8:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
methusla buddy you spelled slvrncrck wrong.;)
January 24, 2009 at 9:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
Forgive methulsa, usually we're jumping on crackinsack. He kind of mixed the two seriousfolks. lol just a little crack at crack, its all in good fun. Just to be fair crack I'll let you hit me with one back. all in good fun. lol
January 24, 2009 at 9:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I appologize for my spelling, but my eyes are not as good as they used to be.
But, I could have sworm it was spelled slvmblck, sorry !
January 24, 2009 at 9:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I was just kiddin anyway. It's all good, well except the ban of course.;)
January 24, 2009 at 9:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
at 7:38 seriously took a shot and spelled it as a combo. He apparently wanted it to catch on and pointed it out to methusla.
methusla, you didn't do it.
lol
January 24, 2009 at 10:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
i'm laughin anyway.
January 24, 2009 at 11:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Whew, that is funny, but boy I thought I was going totally blind or something and was going to have to give up posting. Maybe it is all of that SHS or maybe it is all of that ban smoking B.S. that may be messing with my vision, ha, ha !
January 25, 2009 at 12:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
come on methusla you know the problem. We are against the ban so we aren't supposed to be thinking for ourselves. lol
January 25, 2009 at 12:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
olddog (anonymous) says...
Measure it! Measure the SHS, Cae. Lets see the results. It can all come from the CAE's budget... after all isn't that what it's all about?!? C'mon use some of that money and show us the SHS results .... when & where will the first test take place crack!?! Please .....do tell .......
January 25, 2009 at 1:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
I agree with olddog 100%! Come on CAE, put your money where your mouth is!
On a different note... slvrncrack, haha, TOO funny!
January 25, 2009 at 1:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
olddog (anonymous) says...
Take the test, Cae. Let's get to the bottom of this ..........
January 25, 2009 at 1:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
The pro-ban side got awfuly quite didn't they? We just want the facts, don't they? No charge for filing a complaint with OSHA. Come on crack,black, irish, bigE let's step up.
Steve Corbin
An American
January 25, 2009 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Well, Steve, if they do it themselves rather than hiding behind a group of snobs to do their dirty work for them, then they have to face the truth that they actually WILL infringe upon or even take away others' rights. It's hard to be sanctimonious if you have to see yourself that way. BTW, I loved the second-hand smug line! ; )
January 25, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof: I can't take credit for that line, I think it was Matt who 1st coined it on these threads. I really do hope someone does the Osha complaint, I for one would like to know how they really deal with it & not read a 2nd hand account. I don't think there would be any cost to me involved so what the heck.
2nd hand gossip at the bar the other night, a local up & coming group talking about the smoking ban and all the "IDIOTS" who signed the petition who didn't know what was good for them. I also heard that poor commissioner Walters feels she has a bulls-eye on her back.
Welcome to public life T
Steve Corbin
An American
January 25, 2009 at 11:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Feels like she has a bullseye on her back? Did she really not see this coming? Honestly? Puh - leaseeee..... After the keg registration fiasco, she should have known it would come to this. She also chose to keep pushing on. Then to top it off, she ran for county commissioner!
I don't feel sorry for her. Maybe I am the only one, but that's ok.
January 25, 2009 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Have you ever seen the reaction of a spoiled little brat who has never been told "no" when he hits another kid at the playground and gets smacked back? He feels bad for himself and cries that the second kid was bad. Too bad that level of maturity exists in adults as well---I have no sympathy.
January 25, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
There is a lot of the pro-socialist-ban people do not understand. When someone says on here they are not attacking me (or other anti-ban People) they won't or can't see that by this very ban, they are attacking me. Banning a legal product in a legal business because of junk science and political correctness is an attack on me.
I am an adult, I make my own choices, I follow the laws, (for the most part), and if I don't, I suffer the consequenses. Taking away MY CUSTOMERS RIGHTS TO SMOKE A LEGAL PRODUCT IN MY BAR for the CONVIENIENCE of others is an attack on those rights of freedom and choice. I don't see why that is so hard to fathom for some, but if they can't figure it out, they shouldn't be surprised that I am going to fight back any way I Can. And that bulls-eye just keeps getting bigger and bigger. I think we have figured out our campaign for the vote in April. All we have to do is mention Teresa and Steve Sauders names.
Steve Corbin
An American
Who is tired of Big Government.
P.S.
MisterO:
I have enjoyed your rebuttles to communistsense. Have you noticed they are siting references, finally. Keep up the good fight!
January 25, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof;
Have you seen the movie "Brewsters Millions" with Richard Pryor?
He starts a voters movement to VOTE FOR NONE OF THE ABOVE.
What do you think about or upcoming city commission race, should I start a "WRITE IN ANYONE BUT" campaign?
I already have bumper-stickers. What would happen if "ANYONE" WON?
Anyone got any input? (see definition of loaded question)
Steve
January 25, 2009 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Smoking will be allowed outside of The city clerks office Monday when we present the petition to the City. But please smokers, No smoking on city property! That is covered under the old ordinance. Put your butts out before you step on, so to speak
Steve
January 25, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Steve--
I meant it when I said I am not attacking you. The commissioners are the ones who put the ordinance in. Not me, and not the CAE. There are lots of people with lots of different ideas that they want to make new laws and ordinances about. Some will become new laws, others will not. The CAE and myself have a different opinion than you. Nothing more, nothing less. The CAE presented their IDEA of what should be changed. The commissioners agreed and a new law was made. You and the EOB are doing the exact same thing. You don't think something is right so you are going to present a change.
Like I have said many many times, you have regulations on all kinds of things already in your bar. Are you going to challenge all of them? Are you going to challenge the fire marshall when he says you can only have 105 people in your building, or are you going to challenge the Federal Government because you think that you should be able to serve beer to 18 year olds? Those were laws that were put in place for the safety of others. And it wasn't too terrribly long ago that 18 year olds could drink. Did you challenge that law also?
January 25, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Steve,
I don't remember having seen that movie--I'll have to check it out. I haven't gotten my phone calls made yet to check out how to work around our ballots. Would that kind of write-in be legal or would they be thrown out and allow the same old win-by-default routine? If it will work, it sounds good to me. I would rather have a trustworthy name for a certain percentage of us to write in, but too many people are intimidated by what they perceive to be their lack of qualifications. Any kind of upset will do for me. As for my three-year plan, I'm meeting a small bit of spousal resistance, but I'm not going to push it right now.
slvrnblck:
The existing laws had factual data behind them that was easily recognizable. When people die in building fires because there are too many people for most of them to get out, or buildings collapse because of too much weight on the floor, the cause of death is easily discernible. There were and are concrete numbers behind the health ramifications of alcohol--physical and mental--that are higher, the younger the drinkers starts. Solid facts--alcohol still kills more people, first and second-hand individually, that shs has been proven to.
Have you ever heard of a Good Samaritan law or heard the anti-bullying programs that are currently in schools? Standing by doing nothing while another person is being wronged is being guilty of committing the actual offense.
If a law is going to be made that restricts the activities of one person or group of persons, there needs to be hard proof that the activity in question is, in fact--not theory, restricting or removing the rights of another. If the evidence isn't sufficient to remove reasonable doubt, the law should not be made because if it is, it creates unequal rights in a place where rights were formerly equal.
There is still plenty of reasonable doubts and yet people are attacking Steve and other business owners. If you aren't with him, you are against him. If you support the ban, you are part of the attack.
January 25, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Well put, thanks.
Steve
January 25, 2009 at 6:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck; Instead of typing more or less the same answer to your questions see the above post from oh4theluvof. I think it covers it;0)
Steve
January 25, 2009 at 6:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
A note from my friend in Hutch.
The gang at the Health Policy Authority, are not just paid in Kansas tax money, but are well funded from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, partner to Johnson and Johnson, distributors of Nicoderm, Nicorette, and Chantix. Senator Kelly, of Topeka, and Senator Barnett, Emporia, are on the Steering Committee of the KHPA. Go to the KHPA website, it's all there.
They proudly talk about the three day trip to Chicago, last year, funded by the ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION! Senator's Kelly and Barnett went, and stayed at the Renaissance Hotel. SWANK!
They are two of the biggest supporters of smoking bans.
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation holds 66.4 million shares of J&J. J&J stock closed at $17.40, on Friday. Does a smoking ban begin to make a little more sense?
Wouldn't make sense to ban the SELLING of tobacco. Who would buy Nicorette and Nicoderm? No one.
Putting a piddling 400 million into this grant campaign, is just a drop in the bucket, when you made 68 billion dollars, (yep, that BILLIONS) that year. Ingenuous marketing. And grant seekers will agree to do just about ANYTHING, to get their money grubbing paws on a nickle.
What is wrong with this picture???????
My comment, Do the good senators have any stock in Johnson & Johnson ?
January 25, 2009 at 7:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
Just like anything in politics, follow the money to discover the truth......
January 25, 2009 at 7:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
And so goes the poltical lobbying or as I call it ( " Buying of Congressional votes, Congressmen and Congresswomen ") by any and all means available to special interest groups, such as J & J. And you can bet that Senator Kelly and Senator Barnett are and will be expected by J & J and possibly others who have either voted for them or contributed to their campaigns to do something in return, like vote in favor of a smoking ban.
I wonder how much the CAE, the head of the CAE and some of the other influencial CAE members and supporters contributed to Barnetts campaign, etc.
Such is the " Seedy and Corrupt" way the political circus is run in the U.S..
January 25, 2009 at 7:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Heres a bit of information straight from the " Surgeon General of the U.S." on how to protect yourself and children from SHS.
How to Protect Yourself and Your Loved Ones from Secondhand Smoke
Opening a window, sitting in a separate area, or using ventilation, air conditioning, or a fan cannot eliminate secondhand smoke exposure.
You can protect yourself and your loved ones by:
Making your home and car smoke-free.
Asking people not to smoke around you and your children.
Making sure that your children’s day care center or school is smoke-free.
Choosing restaurants and other businesses that are smoke-free. Thanking businesses for being smoke-free. Letting owners of businesses that are not smoke-free know that secondhand smoke is harmful to your family’s health.
Teaching children to stay away from secondhand smoke.
Avoiding secondhand smoke exposure especially if you or your children have respiratory conditions, if you have heart disease, or if you are pregnant.
Talking to your doctor or healthcare provider more about the dangers of secondhand smoke.
January 25, 2009 at 7:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
P.S. As you can see the whole list of protecting yourself from SHS is a list of choices that all of us as thinking individuals can and should make and not forcably infringe upon, takeaway or restrict the personal rights of individuals who choose to smoke or business owners who choose to allow smoking in their businesses.
The CAE did not show you this part of the Surgeon Genrals report, now did they, I wonder why not.
January 25, 2009 at 7:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Kind of funny how the Surgeon General would tell people to stay away from SHS if if is as harmless as you think.....
January 25, 2009 at 8:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
Kinda funny how Newman Regional isn't overrun with lung cancer, heart disease, and other ailments that are supposedly caused by exposure to 2nd hand smoke.
With all the people who patronize all of the smoking establishments in the city, and all of the families who smoke in their homes and cars, you'd think there would be at least a FEW cases the ban supporters could point to as examples of how bad 2nd hand smoke is supposed to be.
January 25, 2009 at 9:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck- The Surgeon General is and was telling people that they can or should use their own " INTELLIGENCE" and the information provided to them and either choose to stay away from SHS or not to stay away from smoking and SHS, if they use their right to choose to do so, he said nothing about banning smoking. Perhaps the Surgeon General is or was intelligent enough to know that an out right ban on smoking is or would be a violation of certain rights of the countrys citizens.
Would you like to hazard a guess as to why the CAE, you or any of the other ban smoking advocates, who seem to be experts on the subject, neglected to include this bit of information in their stats about what the Surgeon General has said or reported on the matter of smoking and SHS ?
January 25, 2009 at 9:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
You know I'm still stuck on a comment from slvrnblck
"My personal preference is to be in non smoking establishments and I, maybe greedily, think that I should not be limited in my choices because someone else chooses to smoke. If you smoke you should take it outside because you are affecting others....period."
Your personal preference doesn't matter in someone elses business. I can't go to the American Legion and demand to be included in their activities saying, "Well I'm not a veteran, but my preference is to be included."
I know that sounds far fetched but in essence it is the same thing. If I go to a business I am expected to conduct myself in a manner that shows respect for the owner and his business. Not to try to change the parameters of the business to suit my needs or wants. If the business isn't to my liking I dont go their. Now if the owner says he/she allow smoking then who are you to demand otherwise. You dont pay the building cost, merchandise orders, zoning fees, fines, water, electric, gas, insurance, furniture, ect. You pay for a product that the owner sells, not for the image he/she projects. If you have a problem with the owners policy talk to the owner, if he/she doesn't happen to agree with you then there is only one option: LEAVE. Just leave and take your business elsewhere, dont force the owner to accomodate your wants simply because you don't like something, YOU HAVE NO SAY IN HOW THE OWNER RUNS THEIR BUSINESS.
All the crap about SHS, health, and medical cost people are forgetting the basic truth. We dont own or run a business, we pay for the priviledge of being there.
January 25, 2009 at 11:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Oh, come on, romano! I go to the furniture store every week and demand that they sell me discount office supplies. It's working very well--they just gave me their box of rubber bands last week just to get rid of me....................
January 26, 2009 at 12:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
And we'll move to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
January 26, 2009 at 6:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )