bloomsbury (SC DIXON) says...

I would really like to see the Gazette do a follow-up on this story…I remember CAE saying that the ban wouldn’t significantly hurt business, but that’s certainly not the word around town…
The management of Flying J say’s their revenues are down but NOT because of the ban. The truckers however tell a very, very different story. Now they go to BETO junction and simply bypass the Flying J.
Bruff’s business is ‘way down according to people who work there.
Last weekend we wanted to hear live music and went to a place downtown thinking we’d be lucky to get a seat. No problem. The band (“The Usual Suspects”) was great, as usual, but I'll bet there were never more than 20 people in the bar at any given time. This is the same bar and the same band that usually has to stop letting people in by 9 o'clock.
When we left there we went to two other usually hopping places and they were dead-o. When we asked why we heard the same answer loud and clear. The smoking ban is a disaster for business and that means tax revenue is going to fall again. Of course I'm sure the commission can compensate with another sales or property tax increase.
All this begs the question to those who were swooning that, once the smoking ban was in place, that they’d be out in force, enjoying the nightlife, digging the bands, and dancing the night away. WHERE ARE YOU???
If this keeps up the current trend to bring live music back to Emporia on a regular basis is going to dry up. Bands---good bands---cannot and will not play for free, but based on what we saw Saturday (and Friday the week before) bars can’t afford to pay for quality talent when half the tables are empty.
Maybe we better follow Salina and revamp the ban…apparently it has been an unmitigated disaster at least so far.
But why isn’t the local media on top of this, hmmmm?

June 5, 2009 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Dido1969 (anonymous) says...

We’ve been out and noticed the same thing. I have friends that work in some of the bars and restaurants affected and their tips are way down and some are getting their hours cut.
I know that "The Noose™" went smoke-free voluntarily on the original date that the ban was to start, which happens to be about a month before it finally became law.
On the other hand I wonder if they wouldn’t like to have the same option, the freedom of choice as to whether or not they would now go back to allowing smoking---if the option existed. Obviously it doesn’t.
This of course is why we should leave running business to local business people and invite the government to politely butt out.

Really, is anyone surprised that this is how it turned out?

June 5, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

deluvly1 (anonymous) says...

Hey, no surprise to me! I'll tell you what really stinks, the bars are being checked for “compliance,” but no one else is. I see people standing in doorways smoking every day in Emporia, and not at bars, but lawyer’s offices, shoe stores, drug stores, grocery stores, etc.
There was an article in the paper recently telling how big the lettering had to be on the obligatory NO SMOKING signs, but almost none of the shops or stores on Commercial Street have signs. Sounds like discrimination to me.
Besides, if the ban is city-wide and “all inclusive,” why on earth would you require signs in the first place? Does that mean that all stores have to post signs that say NO NUDITY, NO HORSES, NO ROBBERIES OR MURDERS?
How quaintly absurd. Of course when you have a collation of village idiots who say “jump” and the city commission, made up of those who didn’t qualify for membership in the other coalition, asking, “how high?” none of this is shocking.
To bad Emporia voters didn’t have the backbone to go out and vote. What was turnout, anyway, less than 30%?
So now the inmates are running the asylum and we’re going to see a few more empty storefronts. I wonder if the city will regulate how big the letters have to be on the “FOR SALE” signs?

June 5, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

As a member of EOB I would like to thank Mary Smiley for her timely letter, and the other resposnses so far. Business at the bars is down and it's not just the economy . Liquor store (take home), sales are up about the same percentage that bar sales are down. Employees tips are down as ticket totals are lower, people are not staying as long in the bars/grills.
As far as my bar, there is nothing better than standing out in the sun/rain having your smoke and trying to talk over the sound of train horns every 10 minutes drowning out any attempt at conversation with your fellow smokers.
There is a small "upside" to this ban, however, I only have to change my a/c filters every two weeks instead of every five days. I'm saving about $5.00 a month on filters. Too bad sales are down about $4,000.00 a month.
Steve

June 5, 2009 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

I agree, my friend and I went to a bar last Friday for some karioke. On a night that would normally be packed for the place, ususally having 75-100 or more, had maybe 20 people inside. There were about 5 outside smoking, but they couldn't drink out there, and that is where they spent most of the time. We left after 20 minutes. There was no one there. Especially not the non-smokers, whose abundance was expected to fill the void. Americas and Olpe are raking in Emporia's lost revenue.

June 5, 2009 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Dido1969 (anonymous) says...

Yes, before someone blames this too on the economy, you're right, bars outside Emporia are doing great! Also, I have friends who own 2 bars in Topeka and they're having their best year out of the last 10...BOTH locations...

June 5, 2009 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

BTW, I am a non-smoker who would have voted "NO" if given the chance. I live just outside the city limits. I thought this is too much govt. intervention from the beginning. I would like to hear what the CAE has to say about the decline. What does our city govt. have to say? They were shouting so loudly to get this passed, so where are they now and what can they say?

My health was so important to them then, what are they going to do about my health when I can't buy food or pay my bills or see a doctor, because I don't have a job when the city collapses from the lack of business?

June 5, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

The last time I went to K.C. I ate at the Yardhouse. It is located at the Legends Mall. It also has a sign on the door stating that smoking is allowed. (I assume this is so you can make an informed decision about whether to enter, or not) I thought someone had posted during the lead up to the vote that all the really cool towns had smoking bans? I saw a headline about Salina revisiting their ordinance. Anyone know what that is about?

June 5, 2009 at 5:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

admireed (anonymous) says...

From Salina Journal

http://www.saljournal.com/news/story/...

June 5, 2009 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

My guess is, you will not hear anything from the City Commissioners or the CAE one way or another ! The CAE, their backers and the CAE puppet Commissioners got exactly what they wanted, A SMOKING BAN ! Now the CAE and those who supported a ban could care less that business is down or non-existant at the places that they " TARGETED " because these people are the most egomanical, hypocrital, bigoted, despotic and selfish people that live in Emporia or anywhere else, for that matter, and do not care one bit about what or who their selfish wants destroy or cause a hardship upon !

June 5, 2009 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I believe that this issue of a smoking ban and how it has hurt businesses and business owners should be brought to the City Commission , either for outright repeal by a vote of the City Commission or a referendum vote of the people ! And that " THE PEOPLE " should include all residents of Emporia and those Lyon County residents who help support the City of Emporia with their support of businesses in Emporia with their purchases ! After-all if a temporary college resident can activly participate in a City vote and have a say in City affairs, why not a County resident or residents who spend as much or possibly more money in Emporia per annum than a temporary college student ? As I have said before, these residents that live in the County are people and families who have had a vested interest in the City of Emporia for, in most cases, years and years and I believe that they should have as much a say in City matters that will and do affect them, I believe that these people should have even more of a say In City of Emporia issues and matters than a temporary college student, who has hardley any long term vested interest in Emporia !

June 5, 2009 at 5:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

shoehorn,
I am guessing that it has to do with a loss of business and tax revenues !
Just like what is happening here in Emporia !

The loss of sales tax revenue collections = higher taxes elsewhere, such as property taxes, utility rate hikes ( sewer, water, refuse collection, etc.) .

June 5, 2009 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

Thanks for the link ed. That's the type of article bloomsbury is asking for I believe.

I ate at Bruffs for lunch the other day, fewest number of people I've ever witnessed there. My non-smoking wife said it didn't smell any healthier to be there then before the ban. I recently did some traveling, to locations that seemed not to be aware that the economy was bad. There was alot of construction going on, on the roads and in housing developments. Every place we stayed at or dined at offered smoking rooms or smoking areas. All the motels were busy, the restaurants and clubs were as well. Even though I smoke, I chose non-smoking at each location, it was nice having the option.

June 5, 2009 at 5:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

history_nerd (anonymous) says...

"My non-smoking wife said it didn't smell any healthier to be there then before the ban"

Now, I just don't believe that at all. I've been to Bruff's several times since the ban was enacted, and the only smoke I smelled was on the way in.

June 5, 2009 at 7:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

Believe what you want nerd, she was never bothered by the smoke when it was allowed in there. Perhaps your bias against smoking gives you a stronger sensitivity to it? Since when does health have an odor?

June 5, 2009 at 8:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I HEARD IT ON THE RADIO.
There is nothing worse than a reformed whore, except a reformed smoker.
What do you all think?

June 5, 2009 at 9:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

And history nerd, if you Have been to Bruff's several times since the ban has taken effect, maybe you should consider rounding your tip up to 20% for the server who is suffering from the loss of tips due to the ban. Please don't leave 75 cents tip on your thirty dollar tab, like the rest of you non-smoking, non-tipping healthy citizens.

Sorry if the shoe fits?

June 5, 2009 at 9:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

history_nerd (anonymous) says...

I was raised to tip servers well. Then again, I wasn't raised in Kansas.

June 5, 2009 at 10:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

history_nerd (anonymous) says...

I'm not biased against smoking, I just prefer not to be around it if possible. I'm not really sure where you were trying to go with the second part of your statement, neighbor.

June 5, 2009 at 10:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Historynerd:

I hope you were raised to tip well, as the servers in most places are paid $2.39 per hour + tips.. all I have heard from the lowely servers is that tabs are down, hence tips were down, hence their wages were down. No fault of their own, they were forced into this situation. Maybe as you are not forced to endure 2nd hand smoke you can tip a little extra for your enjoyable night out.

June 5, 2009 at 10:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

And if you WERE raised in Kansas, maybe we wouldn't be arguing on this thread.

June 5, 2009 at 10:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

"I'm not biased against smoking, I just prefer not to be around it if possible."

Umm, nerd, where I went to school, that would mean that you are in fact biased against smoking.

In all the times we've been to Bruffs, at their current location, SHS has never been an issue to us, obnoxious drunks were a different story.

June 6, 2009 at 12:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Methusla;

The only way to re-visit this ban would be another petition drive to gather signatures to force it to another city-wide election. This would be something like what Salina is doing now, except their ordinance can be changed by the commission and Emporia's can't. Maybe EOB should think about it and force a special election, (at the City's expense), to bring it to another vote. 10 or 15 thousand dollars to have an election before the college students return to town for school. The cost of the election could be deducted from EDA budget allocation from next years budget.
Just a thought. Wonder if the tax-payers would stand for it?

June 6, 2009 at 8:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

history_nerd (anonymous) says...

I was thinking about "bias" as an synonym for "prejudice" which is definitely not the case for me. Anyway, SHS did bother me when I was pregnant, but then again, the smell of pretty much anything made me feel like I was going to get sick.

June 6, 2009 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Aren't tips supposed to be given for "good" service, not just service?

Vote NO ................or Yes................ wait isn't this over?
You start talkin' bout drinkin' and smokin' and everyone comes out of the wood work armed and ready. How interesting.

June 6, 2009 at 9:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

Well,yeah! Isn't it obvious, the really good service would be given by the nonsmokers because the smokers would be outside burning one insteadof attending to your needs. This would simply be more evidence of the the benefits of not smoking, and the success of the smoking bans implementation. Then again, it could be that business is off so much that tne waitservice is infighting for any revenue it can glean.

June 6, 2009 at 10:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

history_nerd (anonymous) says...

I'd also like to know, how much is revenue usually down this time of year due to college being out of session?

June 6, 2009 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

deluvly1 (anonymous) says...

Hmmm…fanning the old fires, eh? Well, that wasn’t the gist of the original post…it was about the duplicity of the crew that wanted to ban smoking for the sake of banning smoking, all the time being totally disingenuous about what it would not do to business…which is harm it. It has. And it will likely get worse.

Again, if the media was doing its job they would send someone around to the bars and restaurants and ask THEM if the ban hurt business. I’ve done my own little straw poll and I believe I can assure that with possibly one or two exceptions you would get a resounding “YES!”

It is NOT the job of the government to impede the free market place. Bruff's™ was one of a handful of dining places that allowed smoking, they had developed their niche, which is what good business sense dictates one do, but an outside mandate changed the rules.

IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THE SMOKING ISSUE…what matters is how you feel about your community and how many MORE empty storefronts you want scattered around town. This is HURTING people…I’ve been talking to some of the people affected and their income has been significantly impacted. Throw away your notions that all waitresses and bar staff are just college kids trying to earn a little spending money. To some people this is their livelihood, just like being a dentist, a lawyer, whatever. It is a real, bone-fide occupation.

And please do not be obtuse to the point that you don’t think this is going to hurt Joe and Jane Taxpayer. Those of you with your heads in the sand need to do a quick Google and see just how much so-called “sin” taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, etc. contribute to the local economy. Prepare yourself to be impressed.

Then depressed when you realize how much really is at stake here.

It is also well to remember that there are still many people out there who feel that "drinking" is just as bad---and some feel it is MUCH worse than smoking. Be cautious of the power you give to them.

It is confoundingly hilarious to me to see the powers-that-be rail against smoking…raise the taxes sky-high and rub their greedy hands together at how much additional revenue the higher prices will generate for their pet projects. Then, when consumption falls off (look up “capitalism,” supply-demand-cost effectiveness) then they wring their hands and scratch their heads and wonder what went wrong. The revenue they've grown fat on is gone, dried up. What will they do? Go after you wallet from a a different direction, but they will virtually never admit the error of their ways or that it was their greed and confusion of facts that killed the goose that laid all those pretty, golden eggs.

Sometimes it seems that the older the adage, the truer it is. A few come to mind: LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE, MIND YOUR OWN BACKYARD, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR (YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT), IF IT AIN’T BROKE DON’T FIX IT…and (use this space to fill in your own.)

June 6, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Revenue is down because college is not in session? Hum, never thought of that, maybe you are correct, the smoking ban has nothing to do with business being down. It's just the economy and school isn't in session. Dumb ole business owners don't know what they are talking about! How can they run a business and be so stupid? Why I bet half of them aren't even college graduates. No wonder they don't know anything about running a viable business. It's good that the government can help them run their business like government is run. Now everyone is on a level playing field, I just hope it's not the field of failure.

June 6, 2009 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

GOOD POST deluvly 1

June 6, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

history_nerd (anonymous) says...

No need to get snarky, rbow, I was just asking a question.

June 6, 2009 at 9:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Well, a lot of the college kids are gone, yes that will affect revenue and taxes collected from that revenue ! This is and has been exactly my point about temporary residents, that have no long term vested interest in Emporia or the businesses in Emporia, just how many of these temporary residents are going to be returning in the fall and how many of these temporary residents are going to settle in Emporia and call Emporia their home and take a permanenet vested interest in Emporia ? I would venture to say, oh!, maybe 2% to 5% and that is probably on the high end, it may be no where near that number !
My whole point to this is, the fact that the CAE, its supporters and smoking ban advocates, activly recruited and campaigned for voters on campus to vote for the smoking ban and yet knew that the temporary college people had no long term permanent vested interest in the City of Emporia, its businesses or business owners and yet demanded that the temporary college students were allowed and be allowed to vote on the smoking ban issue and insisted that those long time residents, who lived outside Emporia and yet have had a long term vested interest in the City of Emporia, its businesses and business owners by way of their monetary expenditures in and to the City of Emporia not be allowed to vote on the smoking ban issue or any issue that would affect them as well as those who physically live in the City of Emporia, not have a say or be allowed to vote on such issues !
Vote and Voter manipulation ! I believe it was and is !
And rbow I for one would and am all for your petition drive idea !
However I believe that the CAE and its supporters would cry, " FOUL " at the top of their lungs, as there would not be any temporary college students to activly recruit to their unjust cause !

June 6, 2009 at 9:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"No need to get snarky, rbow, I was just asking a question."

History-Nerd, I think if you were losing $4,000/mo, you would probably be a little "snarky" too.

Matt

P.S.-- All you ban supporters, we told you this would happen. Where are all of your "in-depth studies", and your "detailed surveys" at on this one? I find it extremely sad that you had business owners with more than 100 years combined experience telling you this would be bad for business, and you said that "studies show" it wouldn't impact business at all. I sure hope you all went to The Blind's closing party. You remember, the only bar in Emporia that was non-smoking? Way to level the playing field, you frickin idiots. If you missed that one, I'm sure there will be more closing parties you can go to in the next few months.

June 6, 2009 at 11:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Well CAE, what do you have to say about all this? My guess is that you won't touch this because you simply don't give a damn!

Your mission, CAE, was to get this ban passed. In doing so, you fulfilled what was expected of your little group and could then collect on your little escapade to destroy business. That's what this was all about. It was never about anyone's health; it was always about money, money, money for you, you, you and yours.

When the topic was hot before the election, you were on the forum every day with your arguments and insults. Where are you now?

BTW everyone, did you see that the state no longer recognizes the actions and works of DARE because it has been declared that the program doesn't work. What's the diff between DARE and CAE?

I say we start a letter writing campaign to state officials for starters. Then I'm ready to sign another petition to shove this ban off a cliff. Oh darn, we don't have any cliffs around here. Guess we'll have to shove it somewhere else.

June 7, 2009 at 6:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

history_nerd;

I've been called a lot of things over the years, but never "snarky". So after looking up it's definition to make sure of the meaning, I offer my apology to you. I usually don't mean to come across like that. I will blame it on the loss of my usual nicotine fix. I do find the mood of myself and my customers somewhat changed from the old "CHEERS" type bar to something a little less laid back. Hopefully this will be temporary and we will get back to normal soon without any lingering effects. And by the way, the majority of my customer base is not university students, but middle aged blue and white collared workers.
I will try in the future to be more like deluvly1, who's above post was right on the money.

June 7, 2009 at 7:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BigE (anonymous) says...

You guys are spot on! Since the smoking ban is the only possible explanation for business being down, it must also be responsible for the closing of Jock's Nitch! I really never thought this ban would go so far as to hurt the sporting goods industry too!

June 7, 2009 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

big"E" low "IQ"

June 7, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

No, that wasn't right. I apologize. I get irritated when people don't want to have a serious discussion.

June 7, 2009 at 9:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

The whole problem with the smoking ban advocates and their supporters is, the fact that they do or never have had the ability to think outside their own little selfish, selfcentered " BOX " way of thinking ! Their whole attitude is, " if it doesn't affect me, then I don't care " . Well this whole little ban smoking fiasco may just rear its ugly head a bite them in the keester as well !

June 7, 2009 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

I don't think many people see the debate for what it is. It is about how much intrusion into our personal lives should the govenment have? Does "it" have more wisdom regarding your life than you have? I personally want to retain my right to choose, and I am willing to accept personal responsibility for my choices. No, I don't smoke. I did, I quit, and it was I who put the first cigarette in my mouth, not Big Tobacco. It was also I who put the last cigarette in my mouth, and made the choice that it was the last. Insurance companies set rates based on smoking. If you are smoke free for a year, rates go down. Smoke free for three, rates go down more. Freedom is about choices and personal responsibility for the consequences of those choices. If you don't like smoke, don't go there.

June 7, 2009 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

BigE;

I don't believe anyone here said the smoking ban was the only reason for the business slow-down. But the way the general Economy is going, did we need another regulation that had/has the potential for harming business?

June 7, 2009 at 11:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

And as shoehorn correctly stated:

Does "it" have more wisdom regarding your life than you have?

How much government is enough for you?

June 7, 2009 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Denial
That is what people who are in that think that the ban is having no bad effects on the business of these bars and restaurants.
Jocks Nitch closing is evidence that perhaps people aren't as concerned about their health after all. With all the health talk leading up to the vote you'd think that running shoes and such would be flying off the shelves of all our stores. Too many people aren't being honest with themselves.

June 7, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

I tend to think that the smoking ban is only part of the equation, sure it had ramifications but one also has to consider what has happened in last few years in this town.

Tyson workforce cut to the bone
Menu Foods layoffs due to the pet food fiasco

I could go on, this town's ability to shed business faster than it can attract it is killing it. Modine, Didde, Lenze, etc we just keep losing more. The economy will also play a factor in everyone's habits, including the college kids. I do not deny one bit that the ban will have an impact on business, but demonizing it as the only culprit is not sound logic either.

June 7, 2009 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"Denial
That is what people who are in that think that the ban is having no bad effects on the business of these bars and restaurants.
Jocks Nitch closing is evidence that perhaps people aren't as concerned about their health after all. With all the health talk leading up to the vote you'd think that running shoes and such would be flying off the shelves of all our stores. Too many people aren't being honest with themselves."

I doubt it, Jock's Nitch has had trouble for years, even when they were in the Mall they could barely keep the doors open. I would say its more likely that Hibbett's, Brown's, Dryer"s and online and out of town shopping is what was killed them. Pretty hard to keep up with any big E-merchant nowadays.

June 7, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I was being sarcastic.

June 7, 2009 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"And as shoehorn correctly stated:

Does "it" have more wisdom regarding your life than you have?

How much government is enough for you?"

Why is government always being railed on as the enemy here? CAE, I can see that, but last I checked this ban was enacted according to very principles we hold dear in this country. Instead of getting mad and pointing fingers at the "government" look to your right, then to your left, then bitch at one of the voters that voted for this, or better yet, at the apathetic people that don't participate. I'm not a fan of big government either, but government is not to blame for this.

June 7, 2009 at 5:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

The priciples that we hold dear are based on freedom from government intrusions inour personal lives. That is why we had a revolution. Rules and regulatuions, laws and ordinances will continue to be initiated as long as people see "the government" as a tool to get what they want. The danger is when our form of government is seen only as a democracy and not a republic. Majority rule might seem great, as long as your side is the majority. Look at the insanity in what the federal goverment is doing now with the auto industry and the out of control spending.

June 7, 2009 at 10:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

The CAE and Hellebust, at Tobacco Free Kansas, and the Kansas Health Foundation, ALL did what they were paid to do. The Emporia Gazette stood with the big out of town money, because of the lovely ads. The "studies" they printed were ALL on the pro ban side. Larson, at the Gazette, can proudly say that she threw the election with her unquestioned printing of the trumped up, pharma funded study, three days prior to the election. Funny, there are NO articles in the Gazette and the Salina Journal about the business losses. I guess they figure it would be a bit embarassing to tell the public now, that they KNEW, (AND THEY DID KNOW) about the huge amounts of evidence showing horrible losses in small businesses. If there is ANY way that you can get a petition drive going in Emporia, you should. Even the CAE and the Gazette will appreciate it as the grant money will start pouring in again! Remember that the company that sells nicotine replacement products is funding ALL of this. It starts with Johnson and Johnson. (They own Pfizer) There is NO lcoal money involved by pro ban people. AND, they DO NOT CARE AT ALL how many businesses close, or how many people lose their jobs, or how much money in taxes disappear.

June 7, 2009 at 10:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ichoosefreedom (anonymous) says...

It just goes to show you...when Tobacco "CONTROL" does studies on the economic harm from smoking bans, amazingly there is none (they even claim businesses are worth MORE after a ban) and yet when ECONOMISTS do a study, there's tremendous harm. Hmm...who would YOU believe? Ask any bar owner.

June 7, 2009 at 11:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

shoehorn

Last I checked majority rule and democracy was in fact the way our system worked, "government for the people, by the people", so are you saying that people enacting legislation through a democratic process is not the way its done?

People either vote on legislation or elect officials through a vote to enact legislation, are you saying the minority should rule? I am confused by your logic. Sounds more to me like your saying the system is great until it does not go the way you want it to.

As for the rest, spending has been out of control for a long time, not just "now". Perhaps you forgot that we started this century with a budget surplus? And that the deficit was already at record levels before this administration took over? I am not for a second justifying all the spending that is going on, merely pointing out that your comment is not valid, "now" has been happening for quite awhile.

June 8, 2009 at 2 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

brightliner (anonymous) says...

Pretty amazing conclusions from the same people who once suggested "let the democratic process work - just give us a vote, etc."
It is likely that business is off in the bars because - it's off everywhere else and not just in Emporia.
Remember "It's the economy stupid?"
Blame who you will, but times are difficult for everyone right now and the blame can be shared by many.
Virtually every charitable effort that goes on annually in Emporia (and, yes in other communities too) are off this year with the downturn in the world/US econmy being the reason. Everyone is scared and thus spending less on about everything.
The legal process was followed to the letter on the smoking ban question - a request to the city by citizens, consideration and action by the city commission, a successful protest petition carried by opponents and finally a vote by the people of the city to decide the final outcome.
It was close and well scrutinized, but the process was follwed and a decision made.
Please don't blame the system if you didn't win.
EOB was sure they wanted to delay implementation until after the vote - wonder now if they wish they would have allowed the ban to go into effect so they could tell all how much business they were losing?
Unfortuately, Jock's Nitch probably won't be the only Emporia business closing. This problem with the economy is deep and wide and it's going to take a lot of prisoners before it gets better.
Guess we should be thankful we have our computers and this place to vent.

June 8, 2009 at 6:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

to Brightliner, Are you sure we were watching the same process at the same time? First, it was not a group of "citizens". This was grant paid health department employees. Second, the City Council was lobbied long and hard WITHOUT letting the public in on this back door lobbying. By the time it came to the public's attention, the deck was stacked. The Gazette, for whatever reason ($$$) ONLY printed the "studies" produced by the pro ban group, along with all the beautiful ads that the grants paid for. Then three days before the election, Gwen Larson published the coup de grace, grant funded "study" by Hellebust, of Tobacco Free Kansas, who also receive grants from the pharma company, through the Kansas Health Foundation. Sort of how the German press made Hitler look appealing. If you apposed them, look what happened! I now understand what "freedom of the press" really is! Man, was I stupid. I thought the freedom was the right, AND DUTY, to be sceptical, and present all sides of an issue. I was mistaken! If you want the truth to come out, you better have the money to pay for it!

June 8, 2009 at 7:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

a democracy, really?

June 8, 2009 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

history_nerd (anonymous) says...

I have heard the Blind's closing was due more to the fact that the owner didn't know what it took to run a bar, not the smoking ban.

June 8, 2009 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

Check again goodoleboy, we are supposed to be a republic. Somebody decided to throw in democracy along the way.

June 8, 2009 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

Our form of government was established as a Republic. This means that we are governed by a set of laws called a constitution, not popular opinion and majority rule. The three branches of gov't. were set up as a form of checks and balances to keep the power out of any one branch. The processes of legislation were designed intentionally to be slow and cumbersome, so that laws wouldn't be changed on a whim. Our country is a country that almost wasn't. After the revolution, the states mostly wanted to remain independant. It was only with the original bill of rights which outlined the RESTRICTIONS on the federal gov't. that our constituion was ratified.The "record deficit" last year, $459 Billion, has now been surpassed with, the last I heard, a $1.8 Trillion dollar deficit. That is 4X larger, so I guess it is the new record. Before we get into some "us v them", "left v right" "Rep v Dem" debate, ALL of these budgets are voted on by congress. The only power the president has is to veto, which can be overrode.

June 8, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

Again, I don't smoke, so the ban doesn't impact me, but the direction we are headed as far as losing property rights, and removing personal accountability is scary.

June 8, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Lol check again?all a republic is "A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch" -from websters.

Last I checked that still qualifies our federal government and state government as a republic. Still waiting for someone to provide me an explanation as to how this event was somehow not brought on by the people of this town. The the residents of Emporia are responsible for this, cry and whine all you like about the circumstances but the fact is the residents of this county voted this measure in, period. What is sad to me is the number of people that participate, that is what people should be upset about, not the government. One of the major republican principles is personal responsibility, start taking it and quit tossing blame at the government when the blame lies with ourselves and those around us.

June 8, 2009 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"Our form of government was established as a Republic. This means that we are governed by a set of laws called a constitution, not popular opinion and majority rule. The three branches of gov't. were set up as a form of checks and balances to keep the power out of any one branch. The processes of legislation were designed intentionally to be slow and cumbersome, so that laws wouldn't be changed on a whim"

The constitution is not the 10 commandments and never was meant to be set in stone nor unchanged, our forefathers were clear on this matter and I would be happy to start digging up quotes and examples of this if you would like. And like it or the will of the people of this country will dictate said changes, sounds like freedom to me, you know, for the citizens of the country to be able to dictate their own destiny and policy. Laws and policy can be enacted pretty darn quick when desired both Bush and Obama have had some bills zip right through Congress and the House.

Now the deficit, your numbers are off, they do not reflect the sunk costs of the war, but either way my point was to show that spending was out of control for a long time before the current administration came to power, which is true anyway you want to slice it.

June 8, 2009 at 11:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

What is that deafening roar I,m hearing from CAE and our city fathers concerning this situation? Oh yes...it's the sound of silence......I would love to see a new petition drive started but I was under the impression this ordinance...once in place....could not be altered for several years. Was I wrong about that?

June 8, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

merriam-webster
(1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

The numbers are not off.
The hidden cost of entitlements is far scarier than any cost of war.
The current administration made $175 Billion disappear from the deficit between March & April using creative bookkeeping, also. So much for transparency.

Our constitution was not set in stone to be unchanging, just a very difficult and drawn out process to ensure it isn't on a whim.

I have shelves filled with books full of quotes and writings of our founding fathers; start digging, if you wish. :)

My concern is how reckless we are in using the process. Obama wants the supreme court to have empathy, instead of applying the law. This is equal to giving a handful of unelected people the power to rewrite law without tne consent of the people. It might sound good now, but what happens when their empathy is with someone other than you? How would that work in the superbowl?

June 8, 2009 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy, I agree with you about the fact that it was a democratic process legally carried out at the local level of goverment. I also am disappointed because of the lack of interest of the governed to govern themselves. Of, By,For, The "gov't" will do what "it" wants to do when the people don't participate in the process. We've created a monster.
Creative bookkeeping has been with us since LBJ.

June 8, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

solong (anonymous) says...

I have residences in both K.C. and Emporia and have watched with great interest the events and comments in regard to the smoking ban. I noticed a comment on smoking at the Legend's, bars in KCK are allowed to purchase a $250 permit which allows smoking on their premises until 2011, at that time smoking in bars will no longer be permitted. Approximately half of them have done so. In Johnson County the no smoking ban has had a positive effect and it makes going out on the town a much more positve experience, our clothes and hair do not stink and we do not have to share other peoples drugs with them. I do understand business people in Emporia have made decisions based on the concept of smoking being a part of their business and I do have compassion for their position, however, as we evolve things do change and hopefully with time their business will bounce back. I suspect summer activities may have impacted a reduction in business right now along with the transition that is being made. Irregardless, we do look forward to a much better entertainment atmosphere in Emporia at least for us because of the ban and I hope that the ill will subsides as time goes on.

June 8, 2009 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shoehorn (anonymous) says...

Can you tell us why the cut-off date was set back to 2011?

June 8, 2009 at 1:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

Solong, the best thing about the ban is that you will NEVER not be able to find a table. Of course the bar may not be able to afford a band. But we hope you will enjoy the new peace and tranquility in the local bars.

June 8, 2009 at 2:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy,
It is my understanding that some laws, elected officials, government policy may be changed, repealed, recalled or rescinded by means of a referendum of the citizens !
" In some states there is no limit on the referendum power, and any law may be challenged by referendum. " http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictio....
However, I am not a legal scholar and may be wrong on my understanding of

June 8, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

biscuitboy,
referendum n. the process by which the repeal or approval of an existing statute or state constitutional provision is voted upon. Many states provide for referenda (plural of referendum) which are placed on the ballot by a required number of voter signatures on a petition filed.
Another little bit of info, Generally, anyone eligible to vote may sign a petition for referendum, even if he or she is not registered to vote. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictio...

June 8, 2009 at 2:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

You can blame the economy all you want, but beer is pretty inelastic. Besides as Steve said, sales at the liquor stores are up. Doesn't sound like less beer is being sold, just the place it is being sold is different.

You can also quote all the studies you want about new non-smoking patrons coming to the bars once the ban takes effect. Go talk to the bar owners in other towns and they will tell you pretty much the same thing as the Emporia bar owners are telling you. Salina is now even re-visiting their ban. They are only talking at this point, but there is a reason they are talking.....

June 8, 2009 at 10:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Ban opponent: The sky is blue.

Ban proponent: No, I have never seen the sky but I heard it's green.

Ban opponent: No, no. Look it is clearly blue, I'm looking right at it.

Ban proponent: Just because you've "seen" the sky I'm not going to believe you that it's blue.

June 8, 2009 at 11:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

"with time their business will bounce back"

And just how do you propose bar owners earn a living while they are waiting for their businesses to "bounce" back? BTW, "bounce" means right away, and it ain't happening, baby.

This is the same sort of rhetoric that was going on during the big discussion just before the vote. Now here it comes again -- we can go out and our hair and clothing don't stink afterwards -- good freaking grief! So where have you been already? Howcum business is down if it's so great to go out for a beer without stinking afterwards?

This is what stinks -- regular customers who smoke go to a bar everyday, not just once in awhile when they are feeling sociable. They are the bread and butter of the bar owner. Now, if they go at all, they don't stay as long. Business is off.

Bounce you say? BS!

Keeps the ban for the rest of the businesses in town, but leave bars out of it!

I'm all for a recall and look forward to signing another petition that will allow smoking in establishments that serve spirits only. For the record, I'm an ex-smoker and a former bar owner.

June 9, 2009 at 7:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Nobody "knew" what the people wanted and we now only know what a percentage of the people(the voters) wanted. We do know that all the promised business from this ban was a lie. An interesting side note, no one is talking about health anymore.

June 9, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

The defense of the ban was always health(supposedly). The opposition to the ban was business rights and unnecessary government intervention( we are seeing the effects of that). When evidence is given that this is, in fact, bad for business you would think that there would be some sort of rebuttal showing all that the ban has done for the health of Emporians. We instead get people saying things like " my clothes don't stink when I go out and get lit". Health was a noble cause. Why abandon it now? Oh yeah, it was never really about health.

June 9, 2009 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

seriously, you beat me to the punch! This attitude seems pretty typical of most (note I said most) of the ban supporters that I have come across

That attitude being "I couldn't care less if you are losing $4,000 a month in sales, as long as after I kick back 8 Patron shots, drive home, and have unprotected sex with a complete stranger, my hair doesn't smell bad." Anyone ever seen the movie "Idiocracy?"

June 9, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

How about if you want a healthy family you don't go to bars. Now that's healthy. I bet that families that wanted to be healthy before the ban didn't go to bars and aren't going now after the ban.

June 9, 2009 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says...

Antismokers will always try to grasp at any straw imaginable to avoid recognizing the damage that their bans do. The new study by Klein that tries to claim "bans don't hurt bars, restaurants" is a perfect example. The study resulted from a grant proposal where the researchers pretty clearly promised to produce pro-ban results before they even DID the research... and then got paid a half-million dollars for their "scientific" efforts.

The trick they played was to hide the absolute decimation of the bar industry under the much fuzzier and ten times larger figures of the restaurant industry. See the whole story in Jacob Grier's May 27th column and its after-comments:

http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archiv...

Or, if you'd like a *really* quick and clear picture, just check this graph of what Minnesota's five years of bans did to its gambling revenue:

http://arclightzero.web.officelive.co...

When the graph is extended into 2008 you find that the "Worldwide Economic Meltdown" shows up as just a blip at the tail end of a five year disaster.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

June 9, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

I'm picturing crack watering her grass with gatorade...

June 9, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

Gee crack, you make it sound like you are going to fill the gap for these bar owners. I'm glad you have the $4000 per month to keep them going, I sure don't. That's the point though. They can't be open if they don't have the revenue to stay open.

June 9, 2009 at 11:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

boy is this some hail storm or what?

June 9, 2009 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

$60!!!??? Oh wow, that will do it. I bet I've spent more than $150 this week alone. We do like to have a nice time. But I'm not sure how much more we will do here in town. Our friends like to go to Americus bar where they can smoke, drink and sing karioke. Doing your part. Your part was to take mine and my friends part out. You got what you wanted now you have to do more than your share to make up for what you took out.

June 9, 2009 at 12:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

solong (anonymous) says...

Shoehorn, I have been trying to find out the answer to your question as to why the exemption was allowed in Wyandotte County to allow smoking with a permit through 2011. Without talking to a commissioner who was involved the explanation I received was that there were 3 options given to business owners and a permit for $250 each year would allow a business to allow smoking through the end of 2011 supposedly to give businesses a transition period. That was one of the options, I don't know the others. I must also say the commissioners enacted this ordinance, the people were not given a vote. In my mind a conflicting exemption was given to the new casinos going in up here, they were also exempted from the no smoking ordinance. Evidently, tax revenues talk. Find out more a wycokck.org. I would also like to suggest another possible reason for business being down, many people who find smoking offensive have eliminated places where smoking was allowed from their agenda over the years and it may take some time to reintegrate the bar scene back into their lives. Also, many people may choose to drink at home now because of the recession, cost of going out, etc. Our society is changing and that will be a constant, things change. Many do not like it but they will adapt, we have since the beginning of time.

June 9, 2009 at 1:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Take a look at my earlier post of, Posted by methusla (anonymous) on June 7, 2009 at 9:43 a.m., and see if this post doesn't describe crackinsacks and other smoking ban advocates way of thinking and mindset !
Also crack and the other smoking ban advocates, in no way frequent the businesses that are suffering and more than likely never will !
Whether you like it or not, people tend to be regular, repeat customers at certain businesses, and this means they spend money at these businesses every day and night and not just " The spouse and I dropped nearly $60 out on the town the other night. " The point is $60 dollars spent, once a month, once a week, etc., is not going to help make up for a $4000 per month loss in business revenue !
Also Crack, whether you will admit it or not, you, the CAE and the other smoking ban supporters are definately to blame for the loss of revenue of certain " TARGETED " businesses and business owners !

June 9, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Just a little info !
I saw on MSN news link, that the gov't, ( Congress) is attempting to pass legislation to regulate the additives that are added to tobacco products, in order to make tobacco products safer !

June 9, 2009 at 1:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P.S.
Bill SummaryThe act would give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) greater authority to regulate tobacco products in an effort to assist current smokers with quitting and prevent tobacco manufacturers from enticing youth to smoke.[1] According to the its sponsors, the measure would aim to give the FDA the legal authority it needs to:

•Prevent tobacco advertising that targets children
•Prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors
•Help smokers overcome their addiction
•Identify and reduce the toxic constituents of tobacco products and tobacco smoke for those who continue to be exposed to them
•Regulate claims about reduced risk tobacco products
•Prevent the tobacco industry from misleading the public about the dangers of smoking.[1]
This would include establishing stronger warning labels on tobacco products, more stringent regulations of the advertising and sales of tobacco products, the gradual reduction and removal of hazardous ingredients from cigarettes, and new standards for tobacco products labeled "reduced risk" or "low tar."
http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Fami...

June 9, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

giggles (anonymous) says...

Problem is crack, you got your cake, and then you got to eat said cake, now you don't want to pay the large bill for the cake. The gap has to be filled somewhere, but you can't make those people continue to do the business there.
You can't force those smokers to continue to frequent those bars when you took the right away from the bars to cater to those patrons. The smokers will go where their business is welcomed. Anyone got any info on how much Olpe, Hartford, and Americus bars are raking in now? I would venture to say that they aren't seeing this "economic downturn" that Emporia bars are seeing.

June 9, 2009 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says...

"The spouse and I dropped nearly $60 out on the town the other night."

LOL! **TOO** funny! But it illustrates the antismoking mentality perfectly. They simply have no understanding and no care for the businesses and lives that they disrupt. And when actual answers are given to the concerns they raise, they'll classically simply dive down into mud-slinging and claim they have no need to read things - they simply *know* everything by the grace of God and what they hear on TV.

And then once a week or once a month two or three of them will go out to a town that's been decimated by a smoking ban, pool together their money, and "drop" 50 or 60 bucks on some lucky establishment that's managed to survive their ravages.

I've consistently challenged legislators and antismoking groups to get their bans passed by signing legal guarantees to cover the business losses that they swear will never come to pass. Guess what? Not a single one has ever accepted. They're lying, and they KNOW they're lying, and they don't care: THEY are not the ones who'll end up paying for the lies.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

June 9, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Dido1969 (anonymous) says...

I think everyone needs to go back and re-read bloomsbury original comment…I don’t think the intent was to rehash the smoking ban so much as to inject a dose of reality…the old, “be careful what you wish for” adage. Since reading all this I’ve talked to several owners of eating places and of bars. Again folks, pay attention, IT IS NOT THE ECONOMY that is hurting them…bars in towns like Topeka are having banner years, that’s how it is in economic downturns…BUT NOT IN TOWNS WITH SMOKING BANS. Why do some of you deliberately misinterpret the message here?

These people, the owners, their staffs, and their SUPPLIERS are hurting. I remember during the debate someone pointed out the trickle-down…most bars here buy a lot of their supplies right here in town, from grocery stores, the local restaurant equipment supplier, the soft drink companies, the vending machine companies. Even those “wicked” bars sell things other than beer and spirits.

A great many of the responses so far have proven a couple of things. 1., some of the “winners” in the smoking ban issue simply don’t care about whether or not bars survive, many seem to inherently judge them as “evil” or something like it, they refuse to see how these businesses can positively impact the community as outlined above and with the tremendous tax revenue that they generate and 2. They want to confuse the issue with (excuse the expression) smoke and mirrors, that things are “not that bad,” “oh, things will pick up,” “Oh it is the general economy,” etc. all of which miss the point. If your family’s livelihood relied on the restaurant or bar business you wouldn’t be so flip about why they are coming apart at the seams…pay attention. Don’t cloud the issue. People are trying to express legitimate concerns. Making a ridiculous remark like, “well, college is out, that accounts for some of the downturn,” to someone who’s been through summer vacations for years is ludicrous. They know how to handle a typical summer slump, for heaven’s sake they’ve been through it time and time again, and that is NOT what they’re up against now.

Some of you are only hearing what you want to hear and seemingly refuse to address the real issue. That may be okay for you but its too bad for Emporia.

June 9, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ward (anonymous) says...

The smoking ban in Salina is a month old. Our City Commissioners THOUGHT about adding exceptions this week at a meeting but then back tracked and decided they would leave it to the people so now WE are voting on the issue in about a month. As a bar owner, last month alone I lost over 1/3 of my business and it continues to decrease as we set into our second month. The tobacco coalition had the balls to say that we were only here for MONETARY GAIN! HA...have they ever tried to run a bar....we by no means are rich. We are just the average joe trying to make a legal living just like everyone else. I don't care what anyone says but talking with MY customers...they are not here as much or as long because they cannot SMOKE. Catch the clue people...BANS HURT BUSINESS! Why else would the state of kansas consider banning smoking statewide EXCEPT in State owned Casinos?????? Monetary gain????? surely not!

June 9, 2009 at 5:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jcook66801 (anonymous) says...

I don't like this ban. I voted against it. Since it became law, I've been to (best guess) about a third of the bars in town. In most of those, I've asked the help what they think. The far majority say they like the smoke-free atmosphere, for various reasons such as not developing headaches, not having to take frequent breaks outdoors just to escape the smoke, etc. For me, the ban hasn't had nearly the impact I thought it would. Still, I'd vote against it again.

The reality is we asked for a vote and we got it. The majority of those who voted backed the ban. Those who didn't vote didn't care, apparently. We have to live with that, at least for now.

For those of us smoker who insist on throwing our cigarette butts on the ground (as a form of protest?), that's not helping our cause or our reputation.

For you smokers who are now staying home to drink, where is your loyalty? The bar owners fought like Hell to defeat the ban. They fought for your right to drink and smoke in a bar. And now, you turn your back on them? Again, where is your loyalty? Save our bars and give them back the business they have earned.

June 9, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Crack, you certainly have a very hard time in trying to see and think outside your selfish, self-centered little box, and do not have the ability to see and understand what you believe is good, only from your small minded way of thinking, may possibly do great harm to others ! To repeat what has been said many, many times, you and other ban smoking advocates, evidently do not have the where-with-all or ability to make any of lifes decisions on your own, such as if I go to this business will it be unhealthy to me in any way and need someone to make decisions for you, such as the CAE and government. You are truely a sad individual !
There is an old adage that goes " Live and Let Live " , but I am sure you have never heard of it or know what it means !
You damn sure could have avoided the places that allowed smoking, therefore also avoiding the smokers, smoke, SHS and supposed health hazard ! But you were to selfish to make that decision .
And the very idea of you and others blaming business owners for the loss of business is ludicrous on your part !

June 9, 2009 at 6:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crackinsack,
I have a proposal for you and the CAE. Since you have seen fit to ban smoking in all public buildings, based on health reasons. Why not start a campaign to ban all BIO-MASS BURNING, since it has been statistically proven that the smoke and SHS from the burning of BIO-MASS materials is just as hazardous or even more hazardous than tobacco smoke or tobacco smoke SHS.
Surely, if you, the CAE and all the other ban smoking, health advocates are truely concerned about a persons health, a ban on the burning of BIO-MASS materials would also be a good health benefit to everyone ! Oh, thats right I keep forgetting that according to you the burning of BIO-MASS materials is a beneficial and necessary thing, regardless of the health harm it may do !
FYI, Burning a kilogram (2.2lbs.) of wood in a new wood stove will produce about 130 grams of carbon monoxide, 51 grams of hydrocarbons (including up to 10 grams of carcinogenic benzene), 21 grams of fine particulates, and about 0.3 grams of the highly carcinogenic poly cyclic organic hydrocarbons (EPA, 1984, Larson, 1993). Wood burning also produces from 10 to 167 milligrams of highly carcinogenic dioxins per kilogram of fuel burning (Abelson). Wood burning is responsible for about 3 percent of the total suspended particulates, 6 percent of the total carbon monoxide, and 51 percent of the highly carcinogenic polycyclic organic matter produced by all US sources (EPA, 1986). Wood smoke is usually released near ground level in populated areas and thus is especially apt to hurt people. Wood burning pollution is often concentrated in certain areas of the country such as the Northwest, and at specific times, such as winter evenings. [Biomass smoke is generally heavier than air and tends to sink to the ground. It causes high concentrations of deadly particulate where ever it is burned, from a food cart in New York City to a neighbor or restaurant near you. ed.] http://burningissues.org/lukebiomass....
Now I ask you is BIO-MASS burning a necessary and beneficial thing or an unnecessary and unbeneficial health hazard ?

June 9, 2009 at 6:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says...

Ward, they accused you, a bar owner, of trying to make money from your bar? Amazing! I thought bar owners were the distaff wing of the "Little Sisters of Charity" and provided their service purely out of the goodness of their hearts! Heh... y'oughta ask them what THEY are getting paid: you might be in for a surprise... they generally ain't Li'l Orphan Annies: there's big bux in the Tobacco Control biz.

If the Salina decision is going to be made at the ballot box I would strongly recommend your getting together with a few other bar owners and organizing a strong campaign covering ALL the bars and restaurants in Salina to educate their staffs and customers about the lies behind the ban and the importance of their votes. If you go to

http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/2...

you'll find a free printable booklet titled "The Stiletto." Download it print it out, bind it as suggested if you can, and see what sort of reactions you get at your bar. My guess is that you'll agree it's worthwhile to spread. Email me and I'll send you an updated copy and help you if you want to customize the beginning and end pages to speak directly to your situation and the vote if you feel that printing and distributing multiple copies would help in your fight.

Email me through the "Contact the Author" option at www.Antibrains.com

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

June 9, 2009 at 7:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

methusla posted, "Crack, you certainly have a very hard time in trying to ... think..."

You could have just left it at that and applied it to 90% of the ban supporters.

June 9, 2009 at 7:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Dear crackinsack;

I know from your past posts their is no arguing with you, you have your ideas and the hell with the rest of the world. But your earlier post about dropping sixty dollars on the town deserves a response. While I applaud your shopping Emporia First, I would offer a rebutal response. I have about 6 regular smoking customers who "dropped" $40.00 EVERY night for drinks and gambling. That would be $240.00 every night times 7= $1680.00 per week. These are smokers who came in every day and spent at least that much money in the bar. Our "BREAD & BUTTER" so to speak. Since the ban, these smokers have still come in but on average only spend $24.00, then go home. You figure it out. And before you throw out the "GREED" LABEL, know this, There was not ONE person in Emporia, Kansas that did NOT know that my business was smoking allowed and you seem to be the only one that was too stupid to avoid it. Now my smoking customers and my employees have to suffer because of your stupidity/and or lack of common sense.

June 9, 2009 at 10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Well, Steve beat me to it. I read the post from 'ole cracky today at work about dropping $60 one night for her and her hubby and fell on the floor laughing. That's $30 apiece. Wow! Big spender. Either you and your hubby are real lightweights, or you don't tip much. Add it up. $30 a week x 4 weeks a month = $120 a month. As Steve has already stated (and I've seen in my days living in that town and being a regular myself) regulars will spend that and more every week. Heck, last time I was in town, I spent that in 1 night, for just me (food, beer and tips)!

You can bag on them all you want for not continuing to support their favorite bar. The fact of the matter is, they like to have a smoke with their beer. They are still supporting the bar (as Steve has pointed out), but I can't blame them for going somewhere where they don't have to get up and go somewhere else to have that smoke. They can go home or to the Olpe, Americus or another town's bar. You can also blame the economy all you want, but most people have it figured out that's not it at all.....

June 9, 2009 at 11:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )