hogan77 (anonymous) says...

Day two without a cigarette for me. Thankfully, I can share my non-smoking ways with a community that doesn't bash smokers, as I live three and a half hours away from Emporia.

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

railroadhorn (anonymous) says...

The ban is unnecessary for the short duration of contact with smokers while eating at the same restaurant or in a bar. Plus, it's an example of government getting involved where it shouldn't.

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

methusla (anonymous) says...

Jim, First of all it sounds funny calling you Jim, as when we were kids growing up in the same neighborhood I called you Jimmy, every one called me Dick or Dickey and then there was "little Red", etc. and we used to play baseball in the empty lot between "little Reds" house and my house !
Anyway, your post has raised the ire of one of the smoking ban supporters and you dare not say anything against them or you will incure the wrath of the ban smoking gods and you will be chastized as not logical, not inelligent, etc.
Just a warning as to what you might expect.
Hope you are doing well, your friend, D.K.

March 2, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack, if you and the other non-smokers don't hang around smokers or places that allow smoking and therefore are not exposed to the affects of smoke or SHS. It would stand to reason that the only thing you woiuld have to worry about is the exposure to whatever it is you non-smokers would do that is hazardous to your health. If you and others are so afraid of SHS and making decisions, just make one decision to stay away from smokers, businesses that allow smokiing and thereby doing that, avoiding exposure to SHS.
Evidently, ban smoking supporters believe that they shouldn't have to make the decision to stay away from smokers, shs, businesses that wish to allow smoking or allow businesses owners to permit smoking in businesses that they own !
Here is a suggestion, why not have the city commissioners implement an ordinance that prohibits non-smokers from entering a business that allows smoking, where smokers gather or where there is suspected exposure to shs. Making it mandatory that non-smokers get no closer than 50 to 100 feet of a business that allows smoking, where there are known smokers or shs and punishing the non-smoker who violates said ordinance with 30 days in jail and a $ 500 dollar fine and the only exemption being, non-smokers who wish to work in a smoking business or smoking environment, be allowed to do so with out being punished with jail time or fines.
Wouldn't this type of ordinance be just as fair as the proposed CAE smoking ban ordinance. Or would it be violating certain personal rights and civil liberties of non-smokers and if so exactly what rights or civil liberties as a non-smoker would it violate?

March 2, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Oooooooohhhhh!!! It's going to be a loooong month.
Over the weekend, I was told by a local business owner who dislikes smoke (this ban wouldn't effect his business) that he was formerly undecided about which way to vote--the convenience of not having to think about whether or not he might encounter smoke was appealing. After reading about the free market system and reflecting on how quickly changes have occurred in his lifetime, he is leaning now toward letting the consumer demand change the environment. Just a bit of morale boosting for some--if it lowers morale for others, that's just a big fat bonus!

March 2, 2009 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack, you still insist on illogical comparisons. A child in a vehicle depends on adults who are supposed to be intelligent and caring parents to protect it. If the parents do not want to or simply can't make the decision to protect the child and do whats best for the child, then laws have to be passed to protect the child until the child is old enough or has the logic and intelligence to protect themselves.
However I am assuming that you and the rest of the ban smoking advocates would be logical and intelligent enough to decide for yourselves whether or not you want to take the responsibility as to whether you want to expose youselves to shs, which you believe is so deadly, or whether you are logical and smart enough to stay away and not expose yourself to the shs. Apparantely I am wrong in believing that you as thinking, reasoning and responsible adults are not capable of making such a decision.

March 2, 2009 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

You know the old excuse of " serves no purpose" or " serves a purpose" just makes me want to vomit !

March 2, 2009 at 4:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack, Why should smokers and businesses and business owners give in to your demands, isn't that also discrimination or is your idea of discrimination more correct than my idea of discrimination. See the following,

Discrimination toward or against a person or group is the treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit.
Discrimination, different treatment of others based solely on their membership in a socially distinct group or category.

The smoking ban is discriminating against smokers, as it limits them from living their lives as they freely chose to do and it discriminates against individuals who own businesses by not allowing them to run their privately owned businesses as the freely choose to do.
Your smoking ban ordinance singles out smokers and businesses and business owners. My hypothetical ordinance does the same only in reverse and that is why you object to it. Kind of pis_es you off when someone threatens to do the same thing to you, that you are trying to do to others, doesn't it.

March 2, 2009 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack, does everything you do in your live " serve a purpose" that benefits everyone or are some things that you do in your life only " serve your purpose" and have you ever considred that smoking may "serve a purpose" to those who smoke.
Who are you to decide what some one does, serves a purpose and does not serve a purpose ?

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

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

methusla:
Did you catch that frequenting 80% of the local restaurants and 100% of local shopping is living like a hermit? I wonder what percentage I have to go to every month so I can not be a hermit? I think someone might be confused as to what a hermit does. Also, I think crack may be a hermit as I'm quite sure he/she frequents 0% of the local churches. Some people like to make up their own definitions and believe it's so, just because they say it is.

March 2, 2009 at 5:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

GoodMorning (anonymous) says...

Jim: what was your reference? How current was it?
I went to: http://www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks....

and found the following:

"Smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer."

"Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of lung cancer "

March 2, 2009 at 6:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

GoodMorning:
Jim qualified it in NON-smokers.

March 2, 2009 at 6:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

USNretired (anonymous) says...

All the paranoid non-smokers going ballistic. LOL. My spouse smokes but the Dr who did my last physical says I have great lung function and clear lungs.

March 2, 2009 at 7:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

GoodMorning;
A couple of personal questions if you please. Where do you go out to eat/drink now? Where do you want to go to eat/drink if this ban passes?
Steve

March 2, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Has anyone ever noticed that after a good hard rain that the common earthworm comes out of the soil to keep from drowning?
If only some posting on this forum had the sense God gave the earthworm?
Steve

March 2, 2009 at 8:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Oh, but Steve, don't you know that the earthworm "evolved" the instinct to come out of the soil after millenniums of dying from drowning. (for the life of me I can't figure out how dead earthworms evolved anything--they were dead--but some "enlightened" folks understand it.

March 2, 2009 at 9:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

oh4theluvof;

You know it's funny. A certain poster on here is boycotting my business, not because of the 2nd hand smoke, but because my attitude toward them was not friendly, (Healthy).
Why they couldn't use that same common sense with the other 6 or 7 places in town is beyond me. And so far I haven't missed any friendly faces in the crowd and business is still o.k. considering the economy.
Steve

March 2, 2009 at 9:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I just feel all warm and tingly inside knowing that by upsetting that person into boycotting my business that I am personally helping save their health from the "hazzards of 2nd hand smoke.
Steve

March 2, 2009 at 9:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

I had a sneaking suspicion that that face wasn't as important as it thought it was to the Royal. hahahaha
I get the irony--but what can you do? Some humans have very hard heads and hearts and you can't tell them anything, ever. I still believe that the majority in this town have better sense--at least where this ban is concerned..........now, about the people who can't drive without endangering my life..................................................

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

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

It does make you wonder if these pro-ban people who don't want to be controlled or whatever would be as adamant about their rights if they were dropped off at a desert biker bar or at an inner city gang club--those are technically open to the public........................

March 2, 2009 at 9:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

oh4theluvof- Sorry I haven't responded sooner, but had some things to do. Yes I caught the flawed hermit logic of crack.
Must be a very social hermit that visits 100% of the shopping and 80% of the bars and restaurants in Emporia. Only thing crack forgot was that the 20% of the restaurants and bars he/she does not visit are most likely smoking allow bars, and evidently that is the 20% hermit part of his/her life.
The other trouble with cracks and other smoking ban advocates logic is, they want to have access to 100% of everything in Emporia, without any restrictions, life style changes, limits or making any decisions.
On the other hand crack and others want smokers to, change part of their life style, be treated not as an equal, but less than an equal, have all the restrictions placed upon them or their businesses and be treated as a criminal, by having to pay fines, etc. This proposed smoking ban has nothing what so ever to do with equality, being fair or imparshial or health. In fact this proposed smoking ban is the very essence of Discrimination,
based on the definition of " Discrimination", that I posted earlier.
The other thing about cracks and other smoking ban supporters flawed logic is the fact that they say they do not want smokers controlling their lives and yet crack and other smoking ban supporters want to control the lives of smokers. How ironic !
" VOTE NO " on the smoking ban issue.

March 2, 2009 at 11:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

I would like to know, exactly what cracks phrase," That is, of course, unless you want us non-smokers to take our protection into our own hands in order to prevent smokers from harming us... The smokers would definitely lose that battle too." means anyway.
Does this statement not sound like, (Ahem), a terroristic threat ? And how ironic that crack has referred to smokers, smoking ban opponents as terrorists. But of course crack was only kidding,or, so he/she says.

March 2, 2009 at 11:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

allintogether (anonymous) says...

Seems to me that we are not allowed to take any risk these days (I love taking the car up to 128 mph) . It is boring and seems to me to be antithetical to what makes us Americans. This country used to have fun until EVERYTHING we can do will kill us in numbers that are somewhat statistically significant. Can crack or any of the "SHS will kill everyone" sympathizers point to any normalized data, across age groups, that accounts for exposure time, dosage given, the area of the bar, etc. that can swing me to vote for this ridiculous ban? Oh wait, my vote doesn't count even though I spend my dollars in Emporia. I am dubbing this ban "hot garbage'" until the ban supporters can show me real data WITH REAL CONTEXT! Until then, smoke em if you got em.

Advocacy without a mandate from the voters is what exactly?

March 3, 2009 at 2:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

crack
"So, just to get this straight, you are saying that SHS shouldn't be regulated because it only shortens our life a little bit at a time? I'm sorry, but I don't agree. I think that a harmful substance (that serves no purpose) should be regulated so that the general public is protected from it. I don’t think it should matter how much, how often, or how harmful it is. If it’s harmful to any degree and can be prevented, I don’t see why we wouldn’t."

Alcohol is killing you a little bit at a time. Hypocrite.

March 3, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

"That is, of course, unless you want us non-smokers to take our protection into our own hands in order to prevent smokers from harming us.."

Um, yes!!! I would like all non-smokers to take their protection into their own hands. I would like them to choose between limited exposure, or going to another environment. Personal choice is taking our protection into our own hands, but some will only see one way of looking at this.

"No, not everything I do serves a purpose, BUT NOTHING I do harms others without benefitting society in some way."

That is a matter of perspective. I am sure that I would say that your politics and view of religion is harmful to others, while you would say that it benefits others. And how do we know that your drinking isn't harmful to someone other than yourself? We have to take your word for it? "No man is an island" so it does affect someone--good or bad. Hopefully it improves someone's life for you to drink, but unless I talked to everyone surrounding you, I couldn't possibly know that for sure.

March 3, 2009 at 9:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

crack stated:

"No, not everything I do serves a purpose, BUT NOTHING I do harms others without benefitting society in some way."

Taking away my right to choose to use a legal product, and taking away my personal property rights in allowing it's use is harming all of us. You are advocating the removal of our rights and that is harmfull.
Steve

March 3, 2009 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Cracksinsack

I'm one of those non smokers who hasn't been forced into hiding. I'm not a hermit. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about who, or what business, is conspiring against my health I don't feel deprived, nor do I feel that smokers are infringing on my rights. To tell you the truth, I feel quite free and liberated. As I said on another forum, my wife and I have found some far better, cost effective, pleasant options. We've found that we have far less axes to grind that way.

As I've thought about this I've tried to believe that the smoking ban proponents were interested solely in public health. I've come to the conclusion that it is far less about public safety to many ban proponents than it is about exercising power. One of the really stark reminders of that is the refusal of smoking ban proponents to comprimise with the other side. Sometimes in the public square it takes comprimise to get to alternatives that would be acceptable to all. CAE and ban proponents would have none of that. It was interesting to me that those against the ban offered a counter proposal. indicating some willingness to comprimise.

I suppose it could be argued that power sometimes must be used without regard to opposing views in order to achieve productive, "socially beneficial," ends. If the ban passes I don't think many of those for the ban will be satisfied with any limited use of power. There will be other habits to restrain, other public sins (except the abuse of political power, which seems quite acceptable in this town) to expunge.

About a month ago I was going to bypass the vote on the ban. But I've decided to vote against the ban. That, in itself, feels quite liberating.

March 3, 2009 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

crack
"Sure alcohol maybe killing me a bit at a time, but is it hurting others? NOPE! We can’t protect people from themselves, but we can darn sure prevent them from hurting others. Apples to oranges, my cuddly friend, apples to oranges. The two things kinda have to be the same in order for me to be a hypocrite. Good try, though!"

Slow death is slow death it is apples and apples. Alcohol does hurt others. Children abused by drunk adults, spouses abused by drunk spouses, people killed by drunk drivers. People that would not normally do these things do them when drinking therefore you are wrong and your precious alcohol does in fact hurt others.

I personally have been smoke free and alcohol free for well into my second decade now so it's very easy for me to see your hypocracy in this with the whole health issue. Since you feel it's ok to put down smokers for their bad habit because you don't have that bad habit, can I put you down for you having a bad habit that I don't have?

March 3, 2009 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I am not telling anyone that they can't do something. You are.

March 3, 2009 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Crackinsack

No one forced a change on me, nor did I "cave." I made my choice of my own accord. I feel free and liberated. I don't frequent night spots because I've figured out that when I stay at home I have the undivided attention of the pretty girl sitting across the table from me. I could shop at Nieman Macrus, but I don't even darken their doors. Why go if I'm not going to buy their wares? For me the bottom line is this - I don't spend a lot of time focusing my attention on what I don't have. I live in a very big, happy world. I have no need to "cave in" to things I really don't want or need.

I have a difficult time figuring out why you seem so bent on turning this into a morality play. I've caved in. Smokers are weak. Smokers seem to be oppressors akin to al Queda, sending us into hiding. Smokers seem to be intellectually inferior. Etc, etc, etc.

As I said, I'm not a smoker, nor do I spend a lot of time in bars. I'm sure it will sound trite, but some of my best friends are smokers. Why, I probably have friends who cheat on their husbands and wives, which I don't advocate. I'm not an atheist, but I've had some over for dinner and enjoyed their company.

I'll bet if I did a bit of checking I'd find there are a lot of smokers, cheaters, atheists, and other assorted rogues who have won the Medal of Honor and help little old ladies across the street or carry their groceries from the Wal-Mart to their cars. I'll bet a lot of 'em don't even kick their dogs or cats. I'll bet if you did a bit of checking you'd find they are no better or worse overall than those of us who don't smoke or chew. No better, intelectually or morally...no worse....just fellow citizens.

The principle reason I'm voting against the ban has nothing to do with public health. I'm more troubled by the hyper-crusader elements I sense in too many pro-ban proponents. The idiom is a bit updated (no Carrie Nation carrying a hatchet), but it is too much like a great moral crusade for my tastes. (As an aside - wasn't prohbition a dandy solution).

Mark Twain was once asked if there was anything in the world he feared. He replied, "Nothing except being around ten Calvinists convinced they're doing the will of God."

My vote is "no."

March 3, 2009 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

while I have said there is no arguing with crack on this issue, keep it up gang. Every time she/he comes back with an answer we keep getting more votes against this ban. I am surprised that EDA, CAE, CHE, whoever is pushing this ban today has not asked ole cracky to zip it.
Steve

March 3, 2009 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Side note.
There are Calvinists who are against this ban, at least one anyway.

March 3, 2009 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack, do you or anyone who hates smokers, smoking, shs and businesses that allow smoking have any definitave, positive proof that, what ever small amount of exposure to SHS you choose to expose yourself to is actually having a detrimental effect upon your well being or health. As I understand you, your hatred of smokers, smoking and shs has mostly kept you from going to the businesses that allow smoking, so how can your small amount of exposure to shs be causing you so much harm. Also you are the one choosing to harm yourself by going to the businesses or places that allow smoking and are full of shs, aren't you ! Also as I understand from some of your earlier posts you have friends, family and an employer who either smokes or allows smoking ! Yet you have not told any of them how you feel, because you apparantely want to be with your family and friends, at bars and businesses, etc. (that allow smoking) and want to continue working at your place of employment which evidently allows smoking !
Why aren't your friends, (who smoke) and employer, if they allow smoking on the job, harming you in the same manner as the other businesses that allow smoking and why haven't you told them that they are harming or murdering you or that you compare what they are doing to being a terrorist ? Have you ever told your friends, family members or your employer, that what they are doing is an unnecessary thing ? Why do you tolerate your friends, family or employer smoking or allowing smoking and are not willing to tolerate others who smoke or allow smoking ? Health issue, I think not. I am not sure but your and other ban smoking supporters logic and way of thinking and attitude seems to be either a bit hypocritical or bigoted to me.

March 3, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

rbow, thanks for putting the sign up, I appreciate it very much, and proud to display it.

March 3, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

"Come on now, we aren't talking about harming someone’s feelings here,...."
FINALLY, an accurate statement from crack! Although............I don't understand why it was brought up when no one else WAS talking about that, but hey, accuracy is accuracy. Good job, crack! (pat on head)

March 3, 2009 at 2:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsenseemporia (anonymous) says...

According to the American Cancer Society (www.cancer.org) Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:
--an estimated 35,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers
--about 3,000 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
--150,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations annually
--increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma
more than 750,000 middle ear infections in children

Posted By Emporians For Common Sense

March 3, 2009 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )