seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

No matter how the vote goes at least we will truly know the will of the voting public. Great job EOB and supporters!

January 28, 2009 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MatthewCook (anonymous) says...

Crack makes a good point. If the vote comes out in favor of the ban, then perhaps this is a wake up call to businesses in emporia which are stagnant and unwilling to change to fit the need of a larger clientel, not just those they have loyalties to. And with all of the fervor of business interest on this issue, it makes sense that if Emporians are serious about redevelopment, then they will work through or around legal parameters in order to do so.

Regardless, its going to a vote. Well done, folks.

January 28, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lets_get_reasonable (anonymous) says...

Crack is EXACTLY right because I'm guilty of it myself! I'm definitely voting in favor of the ban, but everyone who asks me how i'm voting gets a different response. At the place I work, it's best to just agree with every opinion of the customer unfortunately (I tend to disagree with 95% of them, but they don't know that). Half of them aren't even smokers.. they just disagree with the ban because of the whole "the government controls us too much" thing. I say WAKE UP! It's always been happening, and it will continue to happen. Unfortunate, but true. Even if the ban doesn't go through, they'll eventually find some other way to take a few rights away.

January 28, 2009 at 2:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

djdiablo (anonymous) says...

Yo, Crack...I'll pass that along to friends who own a bar in Lawrence. Their business is down around 60% since their wonderful smoking ban and, after 12 years, they're planning on closing at the end of March...it's great how the non-smokers have simply FLOCKED in since the dreaded weed has been banished. They really appreciate it. Unfortunately, lip service has failed to pay the rent.

Get real.

January 28, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

TeamKansas (anonymous) says...

Wonder how many bars will close because of the ban forcing more people to the unemployment line?? In these economic times you'd think people would think about that side of it as well.

And for the record I am a closet smoker so I dont smoke in public anyways.

January 28, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Folks, I said that one or all of the ban smoking poroponents would gloat if this ban passed on a public vote. I guess I was a little off on the timing, as the gloaters have already started gloating and it does not surprise me that crackinsack would be the first ! And they are not only starting to gloat, prematurely, they are also accusing some of the ban opponents of attempting to buy peoples votes with drinks. Could it be that fear is replacing confidence crackinsack !
Hey crackingloater, just how many valid signatures did the CAE claim to get on their petitions or was the count stopped at something past the number required, as there would be no reason to continue the count much past the required number of verified signatures.
And how much exageration on the numbers of valid signatures did the CAE and its supporters report they had !
Oh yes, thats right the CAE and all the ban smoking proponents do not exagerate or fabricate false information at all, do they ! HA !
And what did some of the influencial CAE members offer to do for the commissioners if they would vote to adopt their smoking ban !
Such as, restaurant owner(s) to commissioners " hey if you vote to adopt this ban, I (we) will let you and your family eat all the delicious burgers, etc, you want, for as long as you are a commissioner, or the media owner says " hey I will give you all of my business and free advertising on my media station if you vote to adopt this smoking ban, for as long as you are a commissioner ".
Kind of works both ways, doesn't it.

January 28, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lets_get_reasonable (anonymous) says...

IIf the ban passes, people will still go to Emporia bars. If ALL PLACES are smoke free, it's either go to a bar and smoke outside, or go out of town to a bar that allows smoking.... but then they'd have to use the gas to drive out of town, get intoxicated, and then risk driving back, getting pulled over, wrecking their vehicle, etc. Sure, people can go to a liquor store and have their own party at home where they can smoke as they please, but liquor stores close a heck of a lot earlier than the bars do =) The results of the poll on this site the other day pretty much hinted that the ban will pass.

January 28, 2009 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

I am glad that the EOB got it passed. I have always been for a public vote. At least this way we will know what the public wants.

January 28, 2009 at 2:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

booker5m (anonymous) says...

Non smokers gloating, Who are the ones lighting up and blowing smoke in your face saying I can smoke because I am American. Drunks dont like to drink alone, sure they will be mad for a couple weeks but they will be back down to the bars

January 28, 2009 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jackslap (anonymous) says...

Who will determine the wording of the ballot question? Will FAE / EDA have input to confuse the matter?

Jack

January 28, 2009 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

booker5m- Who are the ones who are saying to business owners that they must or are being forced to run their business to accomodate us non-smokers and we don't care if your business and your ability to make a living suffers, because I am an American. It certainly are not those who oppose unnecessary ban laws.

January 28, 2009 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...

lets_get_reasonable, your first post shows just how gutless and two faced you are.

"I'm definitely voting in favor of the ban, but everyone who asks me how i'm voting gets a different response. At the place I work, it's best to just agree with every opinion of the customer unfortunately (I tend to disagree with 95% of them, but they don't know that). "

Cant even stand up for what you believe in?

January 28, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jackslap (anonymous) says...

So does this mean Cheech and Chong is not coming to the Granada? That sucks.

Jack

January 28, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I certainly hope that both sides will have a hand in the wording of the ballot. However involving the EDA and the CAE, just may cause another lenghty debate if the wording or at least a compromise on the wording can be agreed upon.
And we already know that the CAE will not compromise on anything and therein lies the problem.

January 28, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I certainly hope that both sides will have a hand in the wording of the ballot. However involving the EDA and the CAE, just may cause another lenghty debate if the wording or at least a compromise on the wording can be agreed upon.
We already know that the CAE will not compromise on anything and therein lies the problem.

January 28, 2009 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jackslap (anonymous) says...

OK, I got it wrong above. It is CAE not the FAE..... You know what I meant..... Mother Teresa and Klan

Jack

January 28, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Sorry, for the double post, just a slip of the old fingers.

January 28, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

Well pass or fail, at least its actually up to Emporians now, not CAE. I'd rather vote and lose, than just lose. Congratulations EOB. At least you fought the good fight, right?

January 28, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lets_get_reasonable (anonymous) says...

Gutless and two-faced huh? Um, I'm pretty sure that with how hard it is to find jobs in Emporia right now, I'm going to do everything I can to KEEP mine. That includes not pissing off any customers. If I didn't voice my opinion (in the proper places, of course) I wouldn't be posting on here now would I?

January 28, 2009 at 3:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Out of the 100 signatures I collected, no one said they had kept up with it on this website--and I asked most of them. So there's......let's say 80% of citizens who haven't taken the poll--non-scientific survey, of course. Also, can you vote unlimited times on it? Maybe five per PC? Lots of room for padding there.........
Just so we aren't "counting our chickens..." as they say. I'm not, myself, but there are a few on here that are.
And, lets_get_unreasonable, "I tend to disagree with 95% of them, but they don't know that." Shouldn't your own estimated percentage tell you a little something about how the majority will probably vote? That matches my own rough estimation of responses from petitioning. It could be indicative of something that you didn't seem like you could quite put your finger on.
You guys are going to be poor sports either way--winning or losing--aren't you?

January 28, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dale011 (anonymous) says...

I'll bet there were several out of towners that signed the petition like I did - I didn't realize you had to live within the city limits for your signature to count.

January 28, 2009 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

For what it is worth I voting against the ban to protect my rights that the founding fathers, and the soldiers that stained this land with their blood gave to us.
If it passes it was the will of the people if the ban fails it was the will of CAE,EAD and their merry bands of tyrannts

As the flag of the American Revolution Portrayed a Snake that Said "Dont Tread on Me".
Say no to goverment influence

January 28, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lets_get_reasonable (anonymous) says...

Good gravy people. When I said 95% of them, I wasn't referring to the smoking ban at all. I was making a general statement about how most of my customers are very strongly opinionated people... about everything! Most of them are senior citizens. I love my customers, they're some of the sweetest people in the world, but they have very different opinions about the issues of the world than someone in their 20's does. That's all I meant. I guess I should have clarified, my bad!

And I'm definitely not a poor sport because I see both sides of the argument (I'm back to the smoking ban topic again). Both sides have very strong points that are easily agreeable, but when it comes down to it, I'm going to vote for the ban just so I can enjoy some of my favorite bars and restaurants without having to leave early due to the smoke burning my eyes. That simple. I'm still going to go to the bars if the ban doesn't pass, I will just have to leave like I usually do when my eyes start burning. Oh well!

One thing though - this ban is "taking away our rights" because business owners won't get to choose for themselves, correct? And the smoking ban came about in the first place because second hand smoke is a safety hazard, correct? Well.... we own our cars and trucks, but there's a law saying we MUST wear a seat belt. Why is this law in effect? Because it saves lives. It's for our well-being.

I'm saying this jokingly but yet with a hint of sincerity - The world be an awesome place if there were no cigarettes to begin with! My grandma would still be alive, my other grandma wouldn't walk around with an oxygen tank, I wouldn't have to worry about my husband coughing up a lung in the middle of the night, all the money he'd save could buy us a new car, my 4 year old cousin wouldn't have to breath in second hand smoke from her mother, the list goes on! As an added bonus, we wouldn't be wasting our time ridiculing everyone on these comment boards because they have a different opinion than us!

January 28, 2009 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daniellaughs (anonymous) says...

Many of you believe the public should vote on this matter with the excuse given that the public knows what's best for the community, all persons.

I've read over and over how business owners should be able to make decisions for themselves, it is their business (and, their personal business whether or not you like it).

So, I ask, how many of you who think this was also voted in favor of the state ban prohibiting marriage recognition for gay couples? Don't they know what's best for themselves? Isn't that their business and none of yours?

Hypocritical?

January 28, 2009 at 5:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

demo1957 (anonymous) says...

Note to early poster, The clerk only verifies the number of signatures required to create election and then stops counting regardless of number submitted.

January 28, 2009 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lets_get_reasonable (anonymous) says...

Completely different topic, daneillaughs, but a good point! And I agree with you 100%.

January 28, 2009 at 5:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daniellaughs (anonymous) says...

Actually, I think it is a similar matter. Sometimes it takes elected officials (or the court) to enact laws that protect everyone, for our own good. They may not be popular laws at the time.

"Vulnerable minority."

Examples...
School desegregation.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Americans with Disabilities Act

January 28, 2009 at 5:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lets_get_reasonable (anonymous) says...

I brought the exact same point up on these boards way back when the smoking ban was first proposed. It got shot down completely by everyone who picks the comments apart, of course, but that doesn't matter. THANK YOU for being the first person other than me to make a point of this.

January 28, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

hey daniell I for one voted against the state ban prohibiting marriage recognition for gay couples.
I think no matter who you are or if you love the person of the opposite sex or the same sex if you are happy go for it. I have several friends that are gay, transgender, bi etc. I belive that everyone should have the right to marry who they want despite the relgious right shoving the good book down our throats.
I am not hypocritical I speak my mind and than let my actions back me up.

January 28, 2009 at 5:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daniellaughs (anonymous) says...

Thank you, very much. We appreciate that.

But, does my point make sense? If you believe gay people should ave their civil marriages recognized by the state, then why was it put to a public vote? There are still too many voters with bigotry and prejudism in their hearts.

As for the smoking ban, I support it; I like to go out here in NYC for a glass of wine and not go home smelling of smoke. But, I completely understand the bar owners in Emporia wanting to make their own decisions.

What the public should and should not vote upon is a very very gray matter, not clearly black and white.

PS: One other point, I enjoy having a cigarette once and a while when I go out out, but I step outside for those five minutes just like the smokers.

January 28, 2009 at 5:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

And in this case, smokers are the vulnerable minority. Count the numbers. That is exactly our point. Thank you!
It's been said about 1,895,267 times, but here it is again: every other law that keeps getting brought up has hard, indisputable, verifiable numbers behind it--if a person dies from flying out of a car in a wreck, it is concretely linked. No SHS information has any firm links. If my kid developed asthma tonight, we would go to the doctor who would ask a series of questions including whether or not there has EVER been SHS exposure. If I say, " Well, a year or so ago we were standing outside of Walmart trying to remember where we parked that day and there was a person smoking about five feet away from us for a minute or so until I figured out which way to go," that case of asthma would end up as one of the anti-SHS campaign's numbers.
As for the gay marriage thing, I'm pretty sure you have a false stereotype there. I don't remember for sure if I even voted on it at all, but I do remember all the hoopla. My thoughts: doesn't really matter--God instituted marriage and it is what He says it is. The law of the land does not redefine it for Him. It is possible for the law to recognize one definition without God changing His definition. I was irritated that it was on the ballot, because I don't like morals being legislated and if we do it for one, we should do it for all. Homosexuality, promiscuity, all ten of the Commandments, etc. If I did vote, it was under protest. I'm sure other ban opposers remember voting against prohibiting it.

January 28, 2009 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daniellaughs (anonymous) says...

Thank you, oh4theluvof. You have exemplified my point; you did vote (or, would have voted) with bigotry in your heart. The question of same-sex marriage should not have been permitted a public vote.

January 28, 2009 at 5:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

yes daniell your point makes a lot of sense to me. Sorry I get got caught up in the moment and forget the point I was trying to make.

January 28, 2009 at 5:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

how was that bigotry?

January 28, 2009 at 5:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

Dainelle I got my education in same-sex marraige debate while living in Los Angeles. Until I went to LA and hung out with the gay community I had some reservations because of how I was raised but I realized they are just like the rest of us. We should be proud of who we are and not what others want us to be.
I have to say I would not have survived living on the streets of LA without them, they are a tight knit community and they look out for each other and if you are open to their way of life they will look out for you.
Smoking is a personal choice and the goverment should not regulate where you you smoke and they sure as hell dont have any business telling you who to marry or not marry.
If you are happy with a same sex marraige go for it and there is no reason they cannot have children in a same sex marraige just because they have two moms or two dads does not mean they will be loved any different. Heck sometimes I think they turn out just like other kids if not better.
Ok I am done with the soap box.

January 28, 2009 at 6:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

big⋅ot⋅ry
   /ˈbɪgətri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [big-uh-tree] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

If I was bigoted about this, wouldn't I have made a point of voting to prohibit it and been out campaigning for others to do so also? I said, "I was irritated that it was on the ballot...."
BTW, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, heroes, but bigots. Bigotry is not always a negative.

January 28, 2009 at 6:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daniellaughs (anonymous) says...

The GLBT community continues to work towwards ending prejudism and strive for equal rights, and gay marriage is one of those rights. We have not been permitted our same civil liberties because of "radically religious" persons who prefer to refer to The Bible.

Your God and my God would disagree with one another. I attend church, too. (I consider myself spiritual, not religious, because I believe my relationship with God is a personal one. I see no need to preach to others.) But, my church supports recognization by the state of same-sex marriage.

Thus, the public vote on the matter is harming a vulnerable minority becuase of the bigotry interpreted from some people's Bibles.

January 28, 2009 at 6:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

daniellaughs (anonymous) says...

I apologize. Then, I misread your earlier comment.

January 28, 2009 at 6:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Ok crack, I just got back in town but I did get a call while away which told me they STOPPED COUNTING @793 VERIFIED. why waste the time and expense of the taxpayers to count more. IF YOU want to verify OUR count put your $$$ where you spout and pay the clerk for the 152 pages of the petition.
What a jack---!
Now I'll go back & read the rest of you good peoples posts.
Steve Corbin
An American

January 28, 2009 at 8:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Steve, good to see you here. Wondered what happened to you.....

January 28, 2009 at 8:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Why does the state have to recognize all marriages? Isn't it also a personal relationship like ours with God? If it's about benifits and such don't civil union laws take care of that? Just like the smoking ban there are motives that lie under the surface that people don't want to admit, I believe. I'm for civil unions for everyone by the way. I think if the government has to recognize unions in any way it should be in a way that doesn't offend any one. Let you, your Church, and your partner decide if you want to be "married" or not. Problem solved, unless of coarse there's more to it than that.

January 28, 2009 at 8:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Pingeon,
Was down south in tulsa seeing a doctor. When I got the phone call that the petition was verified I was really happy. Then I told the wife the first thing out of our dear friend,Cracks mouth would be just what she posted above. It's almost uncanny . Any way we didn't just lay over & let some group take away our rights without a fight. A short period of time and we will find out how people feel (in the privacy of a voting booth).

I'm not gloating, just feeling good.
Steve

January 28, 2009 at 8:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Steve - Yup, too predictable. I saw the headline and I could guess who the first comment would be from and what she would say. Didn't even have to look.

I'm glad you guys didn't lay down. CAE wasn't willing to compromise, so I guess they forced the vote. Still don't understand why they are so against even private clubs choosing. Or for that matter, why they even wasted their time when the miracle doctor is going to bring it to the state level anyway. Oh well, I guess we don't know what's good for us, huh?

January 28, 2009 at 8:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Hey kids,
On the other smoking ban thread, BigE has added another twist. He says this isn't a smoking ban, it is a smoking restriction. Funny isn't that the current law we have right now? A restriction on where smoking is allowed? The proposed ban taking effect in March is just that, a Ban! Don't try to wrap it up pretty for the voters, BigE. They can still smell it & they know when it's garbage.

Steve Corbin
Happy to be
An American

January 28, 2009 at 8:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

letsgetreasonable;

You said it yourself that the job market sucks and you want to keep your job. So do my employees. But if the 60% of my regular customers do what they say they will do if this ban passes. Quit coming in or staying as long, wouldn't it follow that, oh, say 60% of my employees will lose their jobs? You want to enjoy the bars you go to now without the smoke, What makes you think they will be there? My employees jobs gone, strictly for your convienence?

Steve Corbin

January 28, 2009 at 8:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

oh4theluvof:

I'm just about caught up on the posts now.

YOU ARE RIGHT, the Gazette poll lets you post more than 1 time. I myself voted 73 times on it this week, (FOR THE BAN), just to throw CAE off ;)
Steve

January 28, 2009 at 9:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

If you add my 73 votes + the 50 or 60 that crack voted for what does that do for the results.
Steve ;)

January 28, 2009 at 9:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Steve - you want me to write a script that will keep voting over and over to bring that vote up to 30 or 40 thousand?

January 28, 2009 at 9:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

That's hilarious, Steve. I hadn't tried it, but I've been around enough websites to recognize things. It's been a good day! I saw that post from BigE too and all the ones from crack, but didn't bother taking it on--too much happy energy to deal with such nonsense.
On a slightly different note, you and I are really going to have to sit down and talk about why you always call posters that make you mad females if they don't say differently. : ) How does Linda feel about this? Be prepared to give answers--not on here, of course. lol

January 28, 2009 at 9:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Maybe they should call the ban "the pleezy weezy don't smoke it makes me coughy and sneezy restriction" to make people feel better about voting for this pile of "stuff".

oh4
What happened that put you in such a good mood?;)

January 28, 2009 at 9:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Pingeon, that's a great idea!

seriously:
Why, the verified signatures, of course. Whatever else could it be???
Oh, and you better be careful with that marriage/legal union stuff.....someone with a stubborn intolerance for your belief because it differs from theirs might jump to conclusions and call you a "BIGOT!"

January 28, 2009 at 10:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

phiber101 (anonymous) says...

I've posted on previous posts about the smoking ban. I'll say it again. I am an avid non-smoker as it gives me very bad migraines; however, I don't feel it's appropriate for CAE to come in and say that they are going to ban smoking in all public places! That's just ridiculous. I lived in Germany for awhile and they just passed a smoking ban (in the local area) and MANY bars and resturants went out of business because of it. All it will do is hurt the local economy.......hasn't Tyson done enough to this town!? I'm with Steve, I'm happy to be an American and I reserve the right to NOT frequent any place that has smoking because it's my right......as it's the right for any smokers to go there! Before you know it, BIG BROTHER is going to knock on my door and tell me I have to give my guns up. That'll be a bloody day! ;)

January 28, 2009 at 10:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

Just a little insight on the gay/lesbian marriage bebackle. I knew a gay couple, very much in love, that bought a house together and everything. Unfortunately one man was killed in an automobile accident. They had been married out of state, when the significant other tried to get the death benifits i.e.: Life insurance, mortgage transfer, ect. he was denied everything because the state of Kansas does not reconize gay marriage. Luckily the "passed" mans sister inhereted everything and did whats was right in giving everything back to the spouse. How many couples have not been so lucky?

January 28, 2009 at 11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

romano1784 (anonymous) says...

Lets_get_reasonable- I'm not attacking you just a question since you actually seem generally interested in the topic and not just for "follower" reasons.

"Well.... we own our cars and trucks, but there's a law saying we MUST wear a seat belt. Why is this law in effect? Because it saves lives. It's for our well-being."

I wholeheartedly agree that seatbelts save lives and should be worn. But what is your stance on motorcyclist? I see many people riding without helmets much less seat belts since they have none. Now I'm not jumping on the riders as much as the law makers. Why is it a law to wear seatbelts here in Emporia, but not helmets on 'cyclist? That always seem very backwards to me.

January 28, 2009 at 11:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

romano1784- At one time there was a helmet law passed and enforced in Kansas and I believe nation wide, that stated all people who rode a motorcycle, scooter or any motorized two wheeled conveyance on public streets, roads and highways had to wear a helmet or face a pretty stiff fine to do so. And I believe that this helmet law was brought about by lobbying preasure from the Insurance Companys.
However I believe that all the motorcyclists in the Country and Kansas raised such a stink about a violation of their constitutional rights to choose whether to wear a helmet or not that the helmet ban in Kansas and possibly the nation was repealed. However don't take this as gospel, because it was some time ago and I don't remember for sure why the helmet law was repealed !

January 28, 2009 at 11:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

A post from MisterO that should be repeated over and over:

Oh! Think of the CHILDREN!...

"As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." ...Aldof Hitler, Mein Kamph

Steve Corbin
Happy to be
An American

January 29, 2009 at 7:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

glarson (anonymous) says...

And we'll move to a news forum:

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

January 29, 2009 at 7:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

To all who worked and sacrificed to accomplish the task of getting petitions signed, new voters registered and petitions and signitures validated in what little time you had to get it done. My thanks and cudos to all who accomplished this .
Do you think maybe because petitions were signed and validated so quickly, that Big E might have been a little shaken and that possibly public opposition to this smoking " BAN" may be growing and gaining momentum.

January 29, 2009 at 7:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )