Has his reservations
Jerry Gibson - Emporia
Friday, March 6, 2009
I WAS BORN in the Choctaw Nation hospital at Talihina, Okla., in 1948. I remember sitting on the bank of the Mountain Fork River with my grandfather and uncle fishing for white bass with cane poles and red worms. It was cool along the river even in July. Granddad would squat on his heels and take the top off a half-gallon fruit jar and he and Uncle Henry would share a sip or two of Who Hit John. With the top securely returned, each would reach to his shirt pocket and pull out a crumpled bit of papers and a dirty little bag of tobacco to roll a smoke. At the time I thought it strange that they were so content to let me do all the fishing.
When I entered the U.S. Marine Corps in 1965 I learned that you only smoked when the smoking lamp was lit. When you were through smoking, you field striped your butt and policed the area. I have sat across the desk from my doctor while he explained my surgery as he puffed on his Chesterfield.
Things have changed over time; we no longer smoke in all the places we used to, not because of a law, but because the people who owned the property made the decision, for whatever reason, that they didn’t want people smoking on their property.
With this new law will come enforcement and penalties. I don’t think it outside the realm of possibility to see in the future a smoker like me cited for smoking too close to a doorway. Part of my rehabilitation will surely be to see a health-care specialist to remind me of all the dangers of smoking (this will cost at least $300).
Before this goes any further, I think it best that I return to the reservation. I just don’t think I can sit in a meeting that starts, “Hi, I’m Jerry and I’m a smoker.”
Jerry Gibson
Emporia
eldiablo (anonymous) says...
Slavery and vigilante justice used to be perfectly acceptable practices as well at one time in our nations history.
Times change. People get smarter. Smoking is terrible for your health and for the people succumb to it. Get over it.
March 6, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
I wish the smoking ban ordinance had been worded differently and a little more reasonable. When it was just going to be in restaurants, I was for it. But when it was EVERYWHERE plus a long way from a door, I thought it went too far. Downtown with the bars and stores close together, there is nowhere to smoke. I don't smoke, am allergic to smoke, and refuse to expose my child to smoke if I can help it. But I think if someone wants to ruin their health and smell like an ashtray, that's their business. And bars are adult only businesses and should be able to chose for themselves. And 5 feet from a door would be gosh plenty to prevent a flock of smokers huddling in the doorway sending up clouds of smoke for people to have to walk thru to get in or out of a business. I honestly believe, if they hadn't gone so far overboard on writing the ordinance, it would have been not a big deal. The one in Winfield didn't draw this kind of firestorm, according to my father who lives there. The only one really upset was the restaurant owner who had just spent a fortune on special ventilation system so people could smoke inside. Can't blame him for that. Life sucks sometimes. As I live outside the city limits, I don't think I can vote yeah or nay on the ordinance anyway. I hope this will settle down after the vote but doubt it. Either way someone will be mad and pushing for a change.
March 6, 2009 at 1:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
eldiablo;
Times change. They sure do.
People get smarter. By reading your post I'm not so sure.
Jerry was NOT writing about smoking & it's health effects! He was writing about a ban on smoking on private property. Please go back and re-read his letter?
March 6, 2009 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
djdiablo (anonymous) says...
And on it goes. It is going to boil down to this: People who are “entitled” to vote in this election need to understand that this is probably it… “It was raining,” “I was too busy,” and the other excuses are not going to walk this time. Like everyone else on these sites I find myself repeating the same things over and over, what we say here matters very little. It is the vote that will count.
It is not about health, it is not about cigarettes, it is not about booze, and it never has been. It is about choice. Yours and mine and the fella who doesn’t agree with us. But it is (still) a democracy.
Vote.
Vote.
Vote. Some of us are not “entitled” to, even though we own business(s) in downtown Emporia, our fate is out of our hands and is in the hands of those who can VOTE.
March 6, 2009 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Gimme a taste of that Who Hit John and we'll shoot the you-know-what for awhile. My mother used to say Who Shot John. Must be location.
I quit a two-pack a day habit 8 years ago, and I'm glad I did because for one thing, it was getting expensive. I do feel better despite weight gain. But that's not the point because I'm against the ban and will vote against it. It is dictatorial and robs people of the freedom to think for themselves. I enjoyed your post, Jerry. Semper Fi.
March 6, 2009 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Happiness09 (anonymous) says...
crack: Sounds like you relate well to hillbilly's.
March 6, 2009 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
crack:
I'd like you to know that two of the signatures I collected are college professors. I think they got educated or something to be that--probably even more than you because they don't ever work a third shift, they know they can state their opinions publicly without people thinking they somehow represent ESU and, well, they are professors. Just wanted you to know who all you are putting down and making false assumptions about.
Also, it is great to see yet another anti-ban opinion piece--amazing how many people are willing to stand alone in signing their name to a public opinion piece, but the pro-ban people will only let their names be known when they are part of a group (gangs work this way too). Just an observation.
March 6, 2009 at 5:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
rbow - Don't forget to write down this little gem from your buddy Crack. I think you should keep track of these and start hanging them on the wall down at the Royal.
posted by Crack: "Our society will never advance with these backwards-thinking smokers holding us back."
March 6, 2009 at 6:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
crackinsack posted, "Quit harming your fellow citizens is all we are asking, but I guess that’s asking too much from the “it’s always been this way, so it must be right” crowd."
You keep saying that someone is being harmed and have been asked repeatedly to prove this lie. But I guess that's asking too much from the "I know what's best for everyone and I won't be happy until everyone else does what I say to do" crowd.
March 6, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
deluvly1 (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
March 6, 2009 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink )
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 7:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trbluma (anonymous) says...
dj,crack and the rest of their ilk will never figurre it out. It's not about smoking it's about PERSONAL RIGHTS. Whether as a business owner or a plain ole private citizen. I'm quite sure that none of them has ever done anything bad for their health or something that someone else didn't like. They just want everything their way. Every time we give up another right they are happy.
March 6, 2009 at 7:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
deluvly1 (anonymous) says...
“Since you are so fond of choice, why not choose to move in town instead of complaining about it. After all, isn't that what you are asking non-smokers to do? (if you don't like it, leave)”
Yup, you would love people to just “leave,” so’s your ilk is in control…pretty stupid, to ask someone with 30 years of hard work in a community to just “leave”…how patently ridiculous, and exactly why you are considered to be a running joke on these pages…pay your own dues before you shoot your silly mouth off. Tell us, oh great one, what are your credentials for making Emporia a better place to live?…I know djdiablo…you’re a wet end compared to a truly influential, intelligent, THINKING person…shame on you.…what have you done to build this community? Precious little, I'll wager. What an unmitigated drip...I'm ashamed FOR you...
March 6, 2009 at 7:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
deluvly;
I know dj personally and we could use a few more like him. He is a live and let live kind of guy, who wouldn't be posting on here if some people were not so eager to give up their constitutional rights. If it weren't for dj there would be two more vacant storefronts on Commercial st, so watch the name calling please. There ARE two bars for sale in Emporia, right now, If you people think you can do better go for it. The non-smokers are demanding it so there must be a maket for it.
Steve
March 6, 2009 at 8:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
To clear up a confusing point: there is a pro-ban poster using the name ELdiablo and there is an anti-ban poster using the name DJdiablo. They both posted on this forum and I was confused for several minutes as to why the diablo poster was so contradictory to himself. Turns out it's two different poster names that are very similar. I bet that has some others confused as well.
March 6, 2009 at 11:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
And, I think deluvly was going after crack in defense of dj but in the heat of the response, it wasn't grammatically clear.
March 6, 2009 at 11:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nmse_s (Shannon Standard) says...
In a small town government, someone decides to make up a new law because they feel strongly about something. They take it before the local government for action, the government either inacts it or denies it. Then someone on the opposing side realizes the law is not favorable to their feelings, opinions, beliefs, etc. So a petition is filed to put it to public vote. Our democratic system works when people put forth the effort to make it work. I've read so many posts on here about this particular issue where people have slammed eachother over and over again. Is that truly necessary? Do we need to belittle eachother to get our point across? I don't think it is and even wonder if you were to meet face to face if the same words would be exchanged. Make your voices heard PRO or ANTI ban via the vote.
March 6, 2009 at 11:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
nmse_s
These forums are like a box of chocolates.............. no that's not it............ they are like shs, easily avoidable if you don't like the content.
March 7, 2009 at 12:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof:
I noticed the 2 usernames so much alike,seems to happen all the time. And I loved deluvly1s bet comment to crack. We all had a big laugh at the bar.
Pingeon:
I am keeping track of cracks best quotes, we may use them in our advertising against this ban,
VOTE NO APRIL 7
Steve
March 7, 2009 at 7:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
deluvly1 (anonymous) says...
I'm sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear at all, I am totally in defense of djdiablo, he’s helped out an organization that I belong to on many occasions, without charge and asking that he not be named. I think he is catching a lot of heat right now based on some recent business decisions which took guts to make…a lot of his friends seem to be dissing him…wrong.
March 7, 2009 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
deluvly1,
Sorry I misunderstood. I, like you have heard some of the dissing, some are upset, but it is his decision, it is his business. Maybe the timing was off on the decision, but like I said it is his business and he & I should have the right to make those decisions without government interference.
Steve
March 7, 2009 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
methusla- I certainly hope everyone on here is also keeping track of cracks, insulting, intolerant and stupid remarks as he/she is certainly a good candidate for poster child for how to be, " RUDE, CRUDE, CRASS and INTOLLERANT".
March 7, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crack- The way you and other smoking ban supporters on here keep throwing your " education " in everyones faces, you must be very proud of that fact. However if you are not intelligent enough to put that education to good use, or learned any thing from your " education ", other than how to insult or degrade someone, your so-called " education " means absolutely nothing !
Besides you or the others are not the only ones who may have an " education ", that post on here.
March 7, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Hey methusla,
How's it going? Isn't it funny how the people who brag and flaunt their higher education are the ones who don't always show it in real life. I have nothing against a college education myself, but if I were at that age to decide, I think I would go to the vo-tec school and learn a trade such as nursing, or the building trades, like a carpenter or electrician, or plumber. Something that hardly anyone is doing these days so the potential for pay could be higher than somone with a degree. Anyway, I am past that stage of life so whatever? The good thing about cracks posts are that they work on the weekends so we have a couple of days off from the "educated wonder kid" to enjoy these beautiful days that are here. While driving home today I noticed the 1st daffodills blooming right next to a Vote No sign in a yard. Take it easy.
Steve
March 7, 2009 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
djdiablo (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
March 6, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
nmse_s: It is the kindergarten way...people slam each other, especially by posting racist and/or bigotted comments, when they run out of intelligent things to say.
March 7, 2009 at 8:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
If you see one of those pretty daffodill yellow VOTE NO signs out just remember this:
They were NOT paid for by big tobbacco, or your tax dollars.
March 8, 2009 at 10:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crack- Your comment, "Our society will never advance with these backwards-thinking smokers holding us back."
is really not about progressive thinking ! You have got to be kidding !
Forcing anyone to live by your rules, way of thinking, believing or living by trampling or eliminating of an individuals or individual groups, certain personal rights, civil liberties, etc., by unnecessary use of governmental interferance to promote an individuals or group of individuals agenda is not progressive thinking. It is in fact, regressive thinking. It is regression back to the era of Autocratism , Tyrannical rule or possibly even Dictatorial rule.
The whole appeal of this country to every one in the world, can be found in one word " FREEDOM ". In case you and others have forgotton " FREEDOM " means," the absence of interference with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of coercion or aggression ". Every person in this country is supposed to have " FREEDOM " , but apparantely you and others only believe that " FREEDOM " only applies to you, the CAE and smoking ban supporters and " FREEDOM " does not apply to those who smoke, businesses that allow smoking, owners of businesses that allow smoking or those who do not wish to live your way of living or believing !
I repeat your and others way of thinking is not progressive, but regressive.
March 8, 2009 at 3:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Before crack or any other smoking ban supporter reponds to my last post. I would like you to read the deffinition of " aggression ".
1: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master.
March 8, 2009 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eldiablo (anonymous) says...
I suppose business owners should have the choice to use lead-based paint and asbestos as well.
March 8, 2009 at 8:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
eldiablo posted, "I suppose business owners should have the choice to use lead-based paint and asbestos as well."
Lead-based paint has a definite, medically proven link to health problems. A doctor can examine a patient and say without a doubt that patient's problems were caused by lead poisoning.
Asbestos has a definite, medically proven link to health problems - in particular, a rare type of cancer called mesothelioma. A doctor can examine a patient and say without a doubt that patient's problems were caused by exposure to asbestos.
The same cannot be said about exposure to 2nd hand smoke. I don't believe there is a doctor anywhere who is willing to say their patient's health problems are directly caused by exposure to 2nd hand smoke.
Both lead-based paint and asbestos are strictly regulated by EPA and OSHA.
OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in 2nd smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.
OSHA has stated outright that it would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.
The smoking ban is supposed to be about public health. If anyone believes there are ANY businesses in Emporia that have 2nd hand smoke levels above the standards set by OSHA, I challenge them to have the air tested and PROVE it.
If this is truly a health issue, CAE and the other ban supporters shouldn't be afraid to test the air to prove it is unhealthy, right?
March 8, 2009 at 8:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
MisterO- You are exactly on target and I completely concur !
I have a question for eldiablo or in english, " the devil ".
Do you enjoy the " FREEDOMS " this country affords you, without the threat of interferance from any individuals, group of individuals or from anyone forcing you to live their particular life style or way of living or their beliefs ?
March 8, 2009 at 10:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
There are two things everyone should keep in mind when discussing this topic:
1. This is not a health issue. If it were a health issue, those who support or are pushing for this ban should be willing to test the air to see if it really is unhealthy. Until they can prove the air is unhealthy, it is not a health issue.
2. This is not "the government" taking away our freedoms. It is a nanny group who thinks they know what's best for everyone and wants to tell us how to live 'for our own good'. The CAE are using the government as a tool to pass their own personal agenda.
It has already been established that market pressure and education campaigns are doing the job in reducing smoking in our society. It may not be working fast enough for the nanny groups, but it is working. The annual prevalence of smoking declined 40 percent between 1965 and 1990. In 2006, an estimated 45.3 million, or 20.6% of adults (aged 18+) were current smokers.
The overwhelming majority of businesses and restaurants in Emporia are already smoke-free. If the free market demands smoke-free establishments, then smoke-free establishments will prosper.
We don't need a nanny group or a ban - education and the free market are working just fine.
March 9, 2009 at 7:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
MisterO, I agree with you in part ! Isn't it these " nanny groups", such as the CAE, etc. who are educating the masses with biased, selective, and some false information and has not the local government been forced by the CAE to become invollved in removing certain individual freedoms, such as freedom of choice, certain personal rights, and certain civil liberties " from certain individuals, businesses and businesses owners !
I am not argueing with you, I just believe that since the CAE forced the local governing body to get involved, that this was and is an act of " aggression " on the part of the CAE and the local government. I also believe that there are certain individual freedoms and rights being threatend with extinction by such an act.
After-all how many individual freedoms or rights, etc. must one lose before " Freedom " no longer exists and " Tyranny " becomes the order by which one must live ? The loss of just one individual freedom, right or civil liberty is the beginning of the road to " Tyranny " and I believe that this proposed smoking is the first brick in that road and this smoking ban will be expanded and there will be more " Tyranny Road " bricks to come, in the way of future bans.
Also remember the State Government has also gotten involved !
March 9, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
methusla posted, "Isn't it these " nanny groups", such as the CAE, etc. who are educating the masses with biased, selective, and some false information and has not the local government been forced by the CAE to become involved"
Absolutely. And although it's true that the local government is now involved, I doubt this would have come up at all if not for the nanny squad. But you are correct, the government IS involved now.
March 9, 2009 at 5:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eldiablo (anonymous) says...
Methusla,
I do value my freedoms. Especially my freedom to breathe clean air.
I understand the counter-argument to this is something to this extent: You also have the freedom to avoid certain businesses and business owners also have the freedom to run their business as they please.
All valid arguments. And, yes, it ultimately does boil down to a health issue for the pro-ban people.
I don't smoke and I detest smoking. I have not done a ton of research, but i have found various articles that seem inconclusive when it comes to how smoking-bans affect businesses. It seems that smoking-bans do not have much an impact on business and if owners are being honest, that is ultimately what it boils down to--MONEY. Not individual rights or freedoms... MONEY. If business owners were guaranteed they wouldn't lose business -or even gain business- they would have virtually no problem with enacting the smoking ban.
Taking a look at the past of this nation, you realize that we have generally moved in the 'correct' (notice I didn't say 'right') direction. This is just another example of good change meeting justified hesitance and resistance.
Change is good.
March 10, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
eldiablo- You say " Change is good." Do you believe that " Change is good ", even if that change absolutely means the forcing of certain individuals to give up their right to choose to live their lives as they choose and give up certain of their personal rights and civil liberties, just so a certain individual or group of individuals may have complete and unrestrained access to everything, without having to make any choices at all ? Why change an existing smoking restriction ordinance that has worked and been fair and imparshial for one that is unfair, favors a certain group of individuals, and is so biased it borders on discrimination ?
Are you one of those individuals that believes that everything that you do in your everyday life is beneficial or necessary to everyone?
How would you feel if some individual or group of individuals decided that something you were doing and had been doing for years in your life was allegedly harming them, just because they wanted to be in the same place you were and decided to ban whatever it was you were doing, even though the present law and the owner of the place you were in, allowed you to do it ! Just how would you feel about that ?
March 10, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
devil,
you may be willing to take the chance of this ban adversly affecting my livelyhood, but I am not. If this wasn't true why did the Kansas Senate exempt state owned casinos from their version of the statewide ban? You are right in saying this is all about money. Money the government makes off of taxes on smokes, money being funded by big-Pharma to go to all these stop smoking campaigns and money from tobacco to counter it.
If you are a non-smoker and detest smoking why not ask the government to ban tobacco SALES completely?
March 10, 2009 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
the devil(eldiablo)
How is banning smoking in a bar a health issue? Drinking is more harmful to your health than shs according to something that was posted by commonsenseemporia or whatever your propaganda ministers name is.
"I don't smoke and I detest smoking."
You said this and this is the real reason you want this ban. It's obvious from my perspective that this is not a health issue because people who are truly concerned about their health wouldn't even go to a bar except maybe a juice bar.
I believe that this is more about one group of people looking down on another because they think their vice(drinking) is superior to the other persons(smoking). This is absolutely laughable!
Here is a link for you if you are truly concerned about your health, if not please stop saying this is a health issue. It sickens me.
http://alcoholism.about.com/c/ec/11.htm
March 10, 2009 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eldiablo (anonymous) says...
Why does everyone assume that people who are pro-ban are most concerned with smoke-free bars?
Restaurants anyone?
I like to eat out and enjoy many of the local establishments in Emporia. I feel proud to contribute to local businesses by frequenting them. I can confidently say that I would visit certain establishments more often if a smoking-ban were in place.
I find it laughable that pro-smokers always counter with the alcohol argument. Never in any of my previous quotes did I mention alcohol or promote alcohol. Alcohol is bad for your health too. I'm not sure many people would refute that.
Also, drinking only harms yourself. YES, drinking can have adverse affects on others in indirect ways (drinking & driving, abuse, etc), but that is why drinking and driving and abuse are ILLEGAL. That is the fundamental flaw in the smoking v. alcohol debate. Laws ARE in place to curb the adverse affects of drinking. If someone has a few too many drinks at a private establishment, they get kicked out. If a person has a few too many smokes... nothing.
I believe people should have the right to smoke and pollute their lungs if they choose. I do not believe people should have the right to pollute the lungs of others. If you want to smoke, smoke on your own property. This is not about making smoking illegal.
Also, I do have my vices. But I don't subject others to them. I like to watch American Idol, but I do not force others to do so.
March 10, 2009 at 10:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
You know, what gets me about all you self-rightous pro smoking ban supporters, is the fact that you will believe everything that the CAE, CAI and other clean air, pro ban anything that we do not like supporters tell you or give you to read or put on the public media about how ban smoking and SHS is bad for you. And yet when any one of us, the smoking ban opponents happen to post on here or anywhere directly from the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, etc. that factualy debunks or casts any doubt as to the validity of whether smoking or SHS, alone, by itself will cause any serious diseases or illnesses, that factual information we put forth is either not true, misinformation, disinformation or just plain " CRAP " and completely ignored or not believed by you.
Why is the the information we, the smoking ban opponents, come up with as fact, from well know and reputable organizations any more non-truths, misinforming, disinforming, or plain " CRAP " than anything the CAE,CAI, the smoking ban supporters, etc., are touting as fact or truth ?
And why do those of you who hate smoking and SHS with a passion insist on stubbornly, stupidly choose to expose yourself to something that you believe is so, allegedly detrimental to your health ? Is it because you lack common sense, don't have the ability to make important decisions or because you want to have everything your way and have the desire to control peoples lives ?
I have not heard one single logical, make sense arguement from any ban smoking supporter. If you are afraid something or something that someone is doing will cause harm, then the sensible thing to do is stay away, its that simple.
March 10, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eldiablo (anonymous) says...
I would like to read articles posted directly from the American Heart Association and American Cancer Society that say smoking and SHS are detrimental to one's health.
Methusla,
Your points are valid. But I ask you to consider the other side of your argument. You say people should not be able to control other people, but by allowing smoking and forcing others away from particular establishments, you are -essentially- controlling what and where people go.
Am I completely off base here?
Everyone has their rights and freedoms. However, those rights and freedoms end when they infringe on the rights of others.
I completely understand the flip side to this debate. Business owners' rights are being infringed upon when they are forced to ban smoking...
Both sides have legitimate and fair arguments.
Get out and vote.
March 10, 2009 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eldiablo (anonymous) says...
Sorry to double post. "Articles that say smoking and SHS are NOT* detrimental to one's health," is how the above line should read. Sorry ;)
March 10, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
crack
If you choose to go around smokers(into an environment that the owner has designated for them) then by your choice you get the consequence by your choice. Go to a nonsmoking bar and you won't have to worry about it. EASY!
the devil
you said
"Restaurants anyone?"
I am not going to argue that point because I don't see as much hypocrisy with a ban in restaurants. I don't think it's necessary because the free market is working just fine and fewer and fewer restaurants allow smoking everyday. I would not support a ban on smoking in restaurants because it's not necessary but I can at least see the validity in the argument for one.
There are laws already restricting smoking that are meant to help people avoid shs if they choose to. I believe they are sufficient. I find it laughable that people act as if they don't exist. The reason I bring up alcohol is because if people want to cry out for their health they really shouldn't be going to bars in the first place because there isn't anything healthy there(unless your talking about a juice bar of course). I would like people to be honest about their true motives for wanting a ban in bars because it isn't health. That is painfully obvious.
March 10, 2009 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nmse_s (Shannon Standard) says...
Just FYI: information regarding SHS given by the American Cancer Society and American Heart Association
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/con...
http://www.americanheart.org/presente...
I don't believe CAE forced our local government to deal with this issue. As with a democracy, laws are introduced to small local governments for review and possibly put into place. Our local government could've chosen to table the issue or ignore it all together but they didn't. With a democracy, our government voted to put the ban in place but then a petition was filed to put it to a public vote. It's how it works at this level. Remember you, the citizens of Emporia, voted for our city government.
March 10, 2009 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
nmes_s
True enough and now we will vote on the ban. It should have gone to a public vote to begin with then all this wouldn't have been necessary. There is no doubt that the CAE had tremendous influence over the decision to avoid a public vote, this isn't paranoia, it's in their hand book and has been posted on these forums. They try to bypass democracy to push their agenda and I believe that is wrong.
Even if smoking in public becomes illegal, white washed tombs still won't impress me.
March 10, 2009 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
nmes_s and others- Just FYI: information regarding SHS given by the American Cancer Society and American Heart Association
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI_2_2...
March 10, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Sorry that web address is incorrect. Go to this webaddress, http://www.cancer.org/docroot/home/in.... When the window opens click on " CHOOSE A CANCER TOPIC", at the next window scroll down to lung cancer-smallcell,click on this topic, then click "GO",however you may choose any cancer topic in this list to click on, at the next window click on " ALL ABOUT LUNG CANCER - Small Cell, at the next window click on OVERVIEW: LUNG CANCER Small Cell, at the next window click on, What Causes Small Cell Lung Cancer?
Then read. Very informative and unbiased.
March 10, 2009 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Moving to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
March 10, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nmse_s (Shannon Standard) says...
Seriouslyfolks-should all laws that have been put in place gone before a public vote? No, and obviously not all have. I respect your opinion a great deal and I know you stay well informed. I just have a question for you....where do you get the information that CAE was trying to bypass a public vote? What is "their handbook", I haven't read or heard about the "handbook" before. (For others out there, these are only questions and not "jabs" at seriouslyfolks. This person knows it's only a question, :-) )
Methusla-the website works for me when I click on it from this forum...sorry if you couldn't get to it. Thanks for the info.
March 10, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )