A bigger danger
Doug Morrisey - Emporia
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
MRS. WALTERS and her group are concerned about the health of Emporians. Amen! But I am curious. Just where does she get her scientific information stating that “second-hand smoke” from tobacco products is so dangerous?
Last I read a person working 40 hours a week in an extrtemely smoky bar would inhale about the equivalent of one cigarette per week. Now that doesn’t sound so threatening to me. But I could be wrong. Perhaps she would like to point me in the right direction by citing her sources?
And just for my edification, why has Mrs. Walters picked up the lance and gone a-tilting at tobacco smoke when a far worse pollution is being brought to us by her fellow politicians, Sen.Barnett and Reps. Mast and Hill? The nasty little, life-threatening things emitted in coal-ash and coal-smoke are far more deadly than that released in tobacco smoke. (Plus, none of us really have to go into a smoky bar, but the fly-ash from Holcomb will be inescapable, for ALL of us!)
The blood lust displayed by the Legislature for additional coal-fired energy at Holcomb should be a perfect target for her and her cohort. Where are her health-saving graces when we need them? Perhaps she needs to adapt some Carrie Nation backbone and go swinging her axe at the smokestacks of those plants that are simply producing pollution and energy at our expense (only to be sold to other states)?
Just wonderin’...
Doug Morrisey
Emporia
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
Mr. Morrissey, It would probably do very little good to suggest that you do a little research as to the coal facility that is proposed for Holcomb. How much "ash" is to be put in the air? I believe I have breathed more combusion products than the average non smoking person. I feel that I am concerned with the health of my fellow Kansans (I have lived here all of my life) and see little substance in your complaint. How much pollution was put in the air by Modine? Without doing any research, I suspect it was more than the coal plant is supposed to. It was located on one of the most busiest streets in Emporia.
March 4, 2009 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zander (anonymous) says...
Crackinsack, do you realize how stupid that sounds? Probably not. I think you like to argue just for arguments sake.
One last thing, I refuse to remain safely behind the anonymous username. Just like Mr. Corbin, I am not ashamed of my beliefs and who I might piss off. At least you know where I stand. Respectfully submitted, Delwin Burton
March 4, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
Ha, Mr. Burton, What sounded stupid was my "most busiest streets". I guess I'm not much of a proof reader. I did think that ol Crackinsack made some good points. I, too have let it be known who I am, but I don't feel the need to say it everytime someone makes a statement about "hiding behind the anonymous username".
Back to the submitted letter, I do sometimes I do wonder where these "greenies" come from.
March 4, 2009 at 4:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Doug- There you have it. As long as it is a necessary thing, it doesn't matter if is unhealthy for you, may potentially give you cancer, etc., or even eventually cause your death, as long as it is not smoking or SHS. OOOOPS, thats right I am the bad guy with the bad posting reputation. Sorry, Doug don't listen to me I may misinform or disinform you with my posts !
And don't forget Doug that stuff that comes out of the stack of a coal fired generating plant is not classified as smoke or shs. According to the ban smoking advocates only tobacco products produce smoke or shs that is harmful ! Everything else is a necessary thing !!!!
March 4, 2009 at 4:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
P.S. And Doug as you can see, the benefits out way the costs, even if it may potentially do you and others harm.
March 4, 2009 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Happiness09 (anonymous) says...
Well, I say we all just have a coming out party.
March 4, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
Doug, don't hold your breath waiting for the truth because the CAE group will only give you the propaganda.
As has been stated in other threads, if 2nd hand smoke were so harmful, you would expect there to be at least ONE case that a physician in Emporia could point to and say, that person's health problems were directly caused by exposure to 2nd hand smoke.
With the millions of people who have lived in Emporia over the years, you would would expect there to be at least ONE token case.
" If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth. "
Paul Joseph Goebbles, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany
Stop the lies. Vote against the smoking ban.
March 4, 2009 at 7:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shadou (anonymous) says...
How much fly-ash is to be created by the generators and where does it go? Well, it doesn't go to the moon, that's for sure. It will repose somewhere here on earth and may well eventually escape whatever lovely confines keep it from poisoning us, the way that the fly-ash escaped in Kentucky-Tennessee a short time ago. If I must reiterate, there is no such thing as "clean coal" yet and there most likely won't be until some serious time has elapsed.
Regardeing the energy being supplied by the Holcomb addition, just how much of that energy will remain in Kansas? Not much based upon what I've read. Colorado, a state that has banned new coal-fired plants plans to buy a goodly chunk of it as well as do Oklahoma and Nebraska and Texas. If they want the energy, why don't they build there own plants? Might they just be afraid of the fall-out?
March 4, 2009 at 7:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Your vote WILL make a diffference! Show big government that you don't need their help. You can make up your own mind , thank you.
Vote No in April.
March 4, 2009 at 9:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
generalsn (anonymous) says...
Big pharma doesn't profit from coal smoke. Chantix has no effect.
March 5, 2009 at 6:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
generalsn (anonymous) says...
Any tax exempt charity that has become a political action committee that, instead of doing research and educating, their primary function, now spends huge sums of money to hire lobbyists to make laws using GESTAPO tactics of THREATS, INTIMIDITATION, LAW ENFORCEMENT, and SNITCHING to FORCE people to OBEY their guidelines will get NO DONATIONS from me. Here they are, all fed by big pharma through their Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals...
March 5, 2009 at 6:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
Crackinsack I have to disagree with you, in-part, this time. Coal fired generation of electricity is not a benefit. They flood our air with CO2 and radioactive isotopes (we get coal from the same place we get Uranium & Plutonium, in addition to other gaseous isotopes that are released from burning coal), strip our land, pollute our rivers/streams (where do you think all the pollutants that get "scrubbed" from the exhaust are going to end up?) and deplete our natural resources.
I sincerely do not wish to see a coal-fired generating station built in Kansas and I hope that our new governor continues to resist the efforts of Holcomb.
The effect on our climate will be very similar to how the current economic situation has hit us. It's been developing and we've just been ignoring it.
Dave Ranalli
March 5, 2009 at 11:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
Crackinsack,
Very true. I'd like to see coal plants banned, but I don't think that's a realistic wish. Matter of fact, I think the Kansas legislature will eventually get enough votes to override any veto the governor may have. I think there are many other better alternatives out there to produce the electricity we need, with less impact on the environment and public safety.
As far as the smoking ban, although I'm not crazy about it (I, unfortunately smoke), it's like everything else that we abuse. If we don't take actions to be responsible & accountable for our own actions & how they impact others, then the government "sees a need" to do something about it (seat belts, helmets, etc.). Although me & my wife smoke, we never "lit up" in a restaurant or bar (or any place there are other people who do not smoke). I'm trying to convince her to not smoke in the house or car (because of the kids), but that's a losing battle right now (I'll keep trying).
In regard to "pro-SHS". I do think much of the information published by those against SHS, is very exaggerated. We ("pro-SHS") have to admit that SHS can't be healthy. I also believe that those of us that smoke cigarettes, should respect those who do not.
Dave Ranalli
March 5, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
crackinsack posted, "The problem is that their cost to benefit argument would never weigh in favor of NOT banning SHS. (which is probably why they refuse to do such an analysis)"
The pro-ban group has been asked repeatedly to test the air quality in ANY smoking establishment in Emporia to prove the air is unhealthy. The problem is they know the test would show the air does not fall below OSHA standards (which is probably why they refuse to do such an analysis).
March 5, 2009 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Mr. Dave Ranalli,
Those of us who smoke or allow smoking on our PRIVATE PROPERTY are trying to be respectfull of non-smokers, hence the smoking allowed signs on our businesses. IF YOU FIND 2ND HAND SMOKE A PROBLEM DON'T COME IN. WHAT COULD BE EASIER? I am NOT pro-shs, or pro-cancer. I am however pro-business owners rights, and your rights to support what businesses which cater to your lifestyles. This is NOT A HEALTH ISSUE! IT"S A RIGHTS ISSUE!
VOTE NO ON APRIL 7TH AND PRESERVE YOUR RIGHTS.
Steve Corbin
March 5, 2009 at 8:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
I think it's very telling that those who support the ban feel there is a market for nonsmoking establishments, but none of them are willing to put up their money, their capital, and their effort to open a nonsmoking establishment.
Yet...they have no problem at all risking someone else's livelihood.
Business owners like Steve Corbin took the risk. He put up his own money. He took a chance and built a business that is successful enough to allow him to support his family.
People like crackinsack and the other country club crusaders don't give a second thought about how their ban might effect his business, his livelihood, or his ability to support his family.
The ONLY thing they are thinking of is what they want.
Not because it's a health issue (because it's not - they haven't stepped up to prove the air in Steve's business is unhealthy). It's all about what THEY want and what THEY personally don't like.
Come on CAE, you've got all those tax payer dollars - put up or shut up. If this is a health issue, test the air and PROVE it's unhealthy.
March 5, 2009 at 9:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
"The problem is that their cost to benefit argument would never weigh in favor of NOT banning SHS. (which is probably why they refuse to do such an analysis)" crackinsack
Just because you don't want to see this point of view, doesn't mean we haven't provided a cost/benefit analysis. We keep telling you that the costs to the free market system and the costs to our government system/freedoms make this ban not worth it. We keep giving the projections based on what we see in world history of when this very same ban and similar ones have taken place and what it costs entire countries and say, It's not worth it!"
But as long as YOU don't think it's the same fruit, or that we are all paranoid, it isn't a valid analysis in your eyes. That makes it your refusal, not ours.
March 5, 2009 at 10:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
They want the plants at Holcomb because it's out West, close to Colorado and the other Western states it would be supplying with electricity without having the pollution the plant will create fouling up their air.
March 6, 2009 at 6:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eldiablo (anonymous) says...
This is retarded.
March 6, 2009 at 8:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
rbow,
I have no opinion concerning the ban itself, just an observation related to how the government responds to the irresponsibility of Americans (if we don't take action ourselves, to show more responsibility and consideration to/for our fellow Americans, the government will step in and take the action for us). I am saying SMOKERS should be more considerate of NON-SMOKERS. I have NO opinion concerning the business owners. So please don't miss-quote me and get all "upset".
March 6, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
nutsaboutools,
Sorry man, where did I misquote you? And I am not upset.
I show respect to non-smokers.
If I am in a non-smokers home or car I don't smoke, I don't smoke in most restuarants.
The highest form of respect I give to non-smokers is to post a sign on the doors of my business WARNING them that smoking is permitted, what more can I do without harming and discriminating against my smoking customers?
Steve
March 6, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I know who has solutions to all these problems and more, the Amish!
March 6, 2009 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
nutsaboutools posted, "I am saying SMOKERS should be more considerate of NON-SMOKERS. "
A new person moves to Emporia. Goes to a country music bar that has a sign outside that says "Country Music Nightly". New person doesn't like country music. Should the bar owners and regular patrons "be more considerate" of the new person and stop playing country music?
A guy goes to an ESU basketball game that is clearly labeled "basketball" (he bought the ticket and the ticket says basketball). He decides he doesn't like basketball. Should the stadium owner, basketball team, and fans "be more considerate" of him and not play?
Pretty much the same thing. If you know a business allows smoking and you don't like 2nd hand smoke, be considerate of the business owner and the regular customers - DON'T GO.
March 6, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
crackinsack posted, "MisterO,
No, not the same thing at all. This isn't about preferences. Country music and/or basketball don’t harm the people exposed to it. Are you a Ricardo or something?"
It's exactly the same thing. In each case (entering a smoking establishment, going to a country bar, going to a basketball game), the person makes a choice knowing what is going on (people are smoking, country music is playing, a basketball game is taking place).
In each case, the person is making the CHOICE to enter anyway and then trying to change the environment to suit him because he doesn't like it.
You keep saying someone is being harmed. That's a lie. Prove someone is being harmed. Have the air tested.
March 6, 2009 at 6:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
posted by Crack: "Our society will never advance with these backwards-thinking smokers holding us back."
Our president is a smoker. I wonder who crack voted for?
Smoking does not affect the function of the brain, drinking does. That's why you can't get a DUI for smoking. I wonder if crack drinks? I am pretty sure I already know the answer to both questions.
March 6, 2009 at 7:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trbluma (anonymous) says...
What are you people who don't want a coal fired plant going to do for electricity in the future? We can't build nukes because they will kill us, we don't have the ability to water generate in this state and the wind mills kill birds. Oh I forget you already have electricity so the hell with the rest of the world, you don't like smoke so the hell with anyone or anything that smokes. Who died and made you people God?
March 6, 2009 at 7:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trbluma (anonymous) says...
What are you people who don't want a coal fired plant going to do for electricity in the future? We can't build nukes because they will kill us, we don't have the ability to water generate in this state and the wind mills kill bird. Oh I forget you already have electricity so the hell with the rest of the world, you don'y like smoke so the hell with anyone or anything that smokes. Who died and made you people God?
March 6, 2009 at 7:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Going Amish is the solution to all of our problems! Instead of posting on forums we will have to actually talk to each other in person though, while we have barn raisings and such. I hope I don't offend any Amish people who read these forums.;)
March 6, 2009 at 8:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
The drug company funded, Wicked Witches of the West, have broomed in to your town. They are spouting studies not supported by sound science. When I called the American Cancer Society and the Kansas Dept. of Health last week, they said they would get back to me right away, with info on the supposed study. Golly, I stupidly expected a call back! LOOK OUT DOROTHY, AND YOUR LITTLE DOG,TOO! There must be more than a million people, nationally, on the payroll of the "ostracize smokers", Johnson and Johnson drug company grants payroll. Our own KAN STOP and KAN QUIT lines are not even IN KANSAS, there are in Houston. (Thanks for the jobs!)They DO NOT want people to stop smoking, They want them to use their nicotine replacement products. Otherwise, they would lobby to stop the SELLING of tobacco products. I went to the CDC website, and found that the study being misrepresented, classifies science on three levels. A being the most weak, to C being the strongest. The "scientific study" referencing second hand smoke was rated at A. Go look. Your opinion about second hand smoke doesn't rate government intervention in privately owned and operated businesses. Especially if they post smoking signs at doors. If you want to believe in the WIZARD, with all his noise, and distractions, that's OK. Your opinion is just that, no matter how loud you are, or how much money you have.
March 9, 2009 at 9:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
rbow,
Misunderstood the caps. No problem. Is it just me or am I just missing the big picture? I'm sure you've read some of the latest entries. But are some of these "bloggers" actually comparing smoking with country music or basketball? Cigarette smoke is not harmful? Nuclear kills?
What about the crap produced by coal powered generation? What about the toxic wastes produced by coal powered generation? CO2 and radioactive gaseous isotopes that are released into the environment from coal generation?
Wouldn't the businesses benefit from more clientele, that are interested in a nice cold beer, drink and/or to socialize with friends. I don't know about you, but I don't recall ever going to my favorite bar to smoke a cigarette (like you, I didn't smoke anyhow, most of the people I socialized with were non-smokers, so I waited until I was outside).
March 9, 2009 at 12:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
nutsaboutools;
Let me try to make this as easy to understand as I can.
The MAJORITY 60-70% of my current regular customers are smokers. About 30% don't smoke but say they don't care about any 2nd hand smoke. You do the math. Tell me honestly that if you owned a business like this you would chance pi--ing off that many regular customers, just so you might pick up a few more? You own the business, would you want the government telling you how to run it, especially if there are non-smoking options avaiable,
Is your government doing that great of job lately?
The Noose went smoke free last week, have you been in there to support them?
You must be 21 to drink, don't you think adults should be able to make their own decisions? Please answer the above as if you were a business owner.
Steve
March 9, 2009 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
nutsaboutools posted, "Is it just me or am I just missing the big picture? I'm sure you've read some of the latest entries. But are some of these "bloggers" actually comparing smoking with country music or basketball? Cigarette smoke is not harmful?"
I think you know very well that I wasn't 'comparing smoking with country music or basketball'.
Let me see if I can state this in simpler terms:
If you don't like country music, don't go into a country and western bar and complain about the country music playing on the jukebox.
If you don't like basketball, don't buy a ticket to a basketball game and then complain that they are playing basketball.
If you don't like being exposed to 2nd hand smoke, don't go into businesses that allow smoking.
There. Was that simple enough?
nutsaboutools also posted, "Wouldn't the businesses benefit from more clientele, that are interested in a nice cold beer, drink and/or to socialize with friends."
Business owners like Steve already benefits from his 'clientele'. He and others like him have built successful businesses based on the needs of his 'clientele'. It's his business, and his ability to support his family that is being threatened here. Not yours or any of the CAE/ban supporters.
If you believe there is a market for nonsmoking bars, open one yourself instead of gambling with someone else's livelihood.
March 9, 2009 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
no Answer= no Excuse
March 9, 2009 at 9:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Mistero--
Laws change and people have to adapt. Steve can not run his business anyway he chooses. We have stated many examples how the laws have changed in the past for the benefit of the people.
rbow--
Exactly how would YOU be pi**ing off your customers if the city/public decide to have a ban on smoking. It sounds to me like you have the perfect out. I assume you have a fairly loyal clientele because you are one of the few bars that doesn't change hands every other year, so wouldn't it be safe to infer that if your clients can't smoke in any bar that they will still choose your bar as their watering hole?
March 10, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck;
IF the city ban does pass, I will have no choice but to go non-smoking, or close the doors. My clientel are pretty loyal and they will still stop in, they just won't stay as long.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME I still have the choice to cater to my customers as I see fit. They don't want non-smoking so I won't go non-smoking, until and if the ban takes place.
Steve
March 10, 2009 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
also, Your "perfect out" statement shows a lack of personal responsibility on your part. I don't need an out, this law is wrong. " I was only following orders" was a standard defense of some of the worst offenders of laws in the history of the world. Even if I wasn't in business I would still think this ban is taking away rights of people to freely live their lives in this country.
March 10, 2009 at 10:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
So your clientele will drink more only if they are allowed to smoke while doing so? Do they really think that it is too much trouble to go outside for a quick smoke?
Also, if what you say is true, then maybe the ban has a side benefit. Maybe the "smoker" who stays in a bar and drinks while smoking and then gets in his car and drives home will now be less of a danger to the rest of us because he will have had less to drink.
March 10, 2009 at 11:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
Well basically your stance now is "I don't care if it harms other people, it's my business and I will do as I damn well please! It's always been done this way and I don't want to change!"
March 10, 2009 at 11:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
MisterO,
Just so you know, I'm not for or against the ban (I'm definitely not in favor of more "government regulation", but we bring it upon ourselves or at least that's the perception the government seems to have). Whether or not the ban goes into affect will not prevent me from enjoying an occasional visit to my favorite bar. If I can avoid having a cigarette at work 8-10 hrs a day, I surely can survive putting off having a cigarette the few hours I'm in the bar. I go to enjoy an iced cold beer and some good conversation (not to smoke).
Dave R.
March 10, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
It is amazing to me that some on here can ask a question and when they get the answer they pick and choose the parts of the answer that fits them.
My stance on this issue has been the same since this debate started.
THIS BAN IS BAD.
THE DANGERS OF 2ND HAND SMOKE IN MY BUSINESS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN.
LAWS SHOULD NOT BE ENACTED BASED ON EMOTIONS, (remember Prohibition).
And most of all
It is every adults right to make their own decisions, not the Governments.
March 10, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
This ban is bad why?? Because you don't like it? Because you have to follow an additional rule when conducting your business?
This ban would eliminate several know carcinogens in the air that everyone in your bar breathes. Is that really a bad thing?
As far as SHS goes....you can believe what you want, but several posters on here have provided links to reports that verify that SHS is harmful. For some reason, you think that there is some conspiracy out there and that someone has to prove it directly to you. You know there are several groups out there that don't think that the Holocaust happened either. It doesn't make it any less true because you weren't there to witness it.
March 10, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck: Be careful about citing the Holocaust. There are some on here who love to quote Hitler. Maybe it is hero worship. Who knows?
March 10, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
mrwho--
I am just going to copy and paste so I don't have to retype this thought for you:
Actually the Constitution, the Federal Govt, State and City Government et al. gave the CAE the right to stand up for what they believe in. Just like the gave that right to the EOB. The CAE is not telling anyone how to live, they are ASKING for a change. Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't. We will know in less than a month and then the government will tell us what we can or can not do. Just like they always have. Quit accusing the CAE of trampling on your rights. They are doing no such thing. They are just exercising theirs!
March 10, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Forum time:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
March 10, 2009 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
mrwho;
There is no use aurguing with some. We know that crack, slvrblck, bigE and probably irish will vote yes along with teresa and bobbie &steve sauder. You'll just have to convince your friends of the other side of the story and make sure they get out to vote, if they live in Emporia. Word of mouth is the best way to get people out to vote on this important issue.
Vote NO on April 7th
Steve
March 10, 2009 at 4:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )