It's about rights
Steve Corbin - Emporia
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
THE ELECTION April 7 would be a non-election if not for the smoking ban question. Emporia already has a smoking ordinance which has worked for over a decade.
We have been bombarded with so-called studies and scientific “facts.”
We’ve been told “Everyone else is doing it, so Emporia should, too.”
“It’s for the children, it’s for the employees, it’s because we want to go out and party without being exposed to second-hand smoke.”
The truth is, it’s about rights! Not the right to smoke or not smoke. It is all about private property rights.
When you vote, remember these issues.
You are voting in Emporia’s election for Emporia rights.
There has never been any study in Emporia showing unsafe levels of second-hand smoke in any business in Emporia.
Are you satisfied with the way your city, state or national governments have been working?
Are you ready to give up another one of our precious rights?
In the words of another Kansas boy:
“Every step we take towards making the state our caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the state our master”
— Dwight Eisenhower
Vote no on the smoking ban and protect all of our precious rights.
Steve Corbin
Emporia
kittenslvsu (anonymous) says...
A pat on the back Steve I agree.
March 11, 2009 at 4:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Every time we vote to give government more rights we vote to give citizens less rights.
Steve speaks the truth.
Vote "NO" on the ridiculous and needless smoking ban issue.
March 11, 2009 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Great letter, Steve!
March 11, 2009 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
crack, why do you call the business owners selfish and greedy? Do you not understand that a drop in business for them is the same as an hours-cut or a layoff is to you or me? Is it greedy for us to need our paychecks to pay for our homes, cars, food and utilities? Why do you say it is greedy for them to need that too?
March 11, 2009 at 5:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jmcmannis (anonymous) says...
HEAR HEAR STEVE: Great letter as well.
Here is something I posted on the old forum:
Hmm history shows us the Govt is corrupt and does not always have our best interest at heart. Big Tobacco makes billions off selling Tobacco products. No one has died from smoking a cigarette unless they were in bed or on Oxygen and smoked that I know of.
I can think of a hundred reasons that cause lung cancer and emphysema, and done of them have to do with SHS.
Shoot I have inhaled tobacco, natural green grass (granted illegal) and crack smoke and no signs of lung cancer in addition to the above I have inhaled Toxic fumes from a paper mill, fumes from asphalt and roofing tar, abestos, mixed chemicals etc.
Guess with all that SHS and other toxic fumes my lungs are still healthy enough to pass a firefighter physical and one of the requirements was strong lungs.
So CHE, CAE, T. Walters and the rest of you that support this ban that strips our RIGHTS away: Stick it in your pipe and smoke it because you all are full of hot air.
March 11, 2009 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
Great letter, Steve!
How many of the ban supporters say "it's a health issue" and then turned right around on these very forums and said they have avoided restaurants because they "didn't want to smell smoke" when they were eating.
For the ban supporters, answer this question honestly if you can:
"When you walk into a restaurant and find people smoking, do you immediately think to yourself 'Oh my God, I better leave or I'll get cancer' or do you think to yourself 'I'm going somewhere else because I don't want to smell smoke'?
I already know what your "public" answers will be, but I think most of us know the truth:
It's not a health issue for most of you. It never was. It's a personal preference for you - you just don't like the smell of cigarettes.
March 11, 2009 at 6:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
rbow- Bravo Steve. Only thing I would like to say is. The CAE and its smoking ban supporters tell you, the " CITIZENS " of Emporia that this smoking ban is for inside spaces and if it is approved that will be the end of it ! DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT, an outside smoking ban is in the CAEs future agenda and strategy and if an outside smoking ban is approved, then a smoking ban in your/our homes will be the next ban, and so on, and so on. I completely agree with Steve about this being a " RIGHTS " issue, not just a business or businessowners " RIGHTS ".
" PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, VOTE NO ON APRIL 7TH
March 11, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
generalsn (anonymous) says...
After over a year of experience here in Chicago, now that the fanfare has worn off and the lobbyists have moved on to other states, it's clearly obvious that trying to ban smoking in small neighborhood "shot and beer" bars is pretty useless. Many small bars in my area ignore the ban to keep their customers, neighbors, and local police (many are patrons when off duty) satisfied. In areas where real crime is an issue, the problem of undesirables being attracted by groups of people outside the bars and causing disturbances on the PUBLIC street, property that the owner has no control over, far outweighs the issue of people peacefully smoking inside a bar, bothering absolutly no one, All of the complaints are from neighbors of bars that comply. Also, having kids exposed to more smoke than ever before at home just gives the ban fanatics a reason to want to ban smoking in private homes, which is already happening in California. Once started, these bans never stop.
March 11, 2009 at 6:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eronga_native (anonymous) says...
Cancer, due to cigarrete smoke, has been on the raise. If you love your children, I just have one thing to say. VOTE "YES" on April 7th.
March 11, 2009 at 7:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Paccifier (anonymous) says...
How do you get a yard sign with a "NO" on it.
March 11, 2009 at 7:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
eronga_native:
"As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation"---Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf
March 11, 2009 at 7:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
If you are truly concerned about the children being exposed to SHS, look up the ban that was passed in Wichita, KS. Why is no compromise such as this one even being considered? I am very much against any ban, but if you have to have one, Wichita's doesn't seem that bad.
March 11, 2009 at 7:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
eronga_native posted, "Cancer, due to cigarrete smoke, has been on the raise. If you love your children, I just have one thing to say. VOTE "YES" on April 7th."
Psst...eronga_native....if you don't want your children exposed to 2nd hand smoke, don't bring them in the bars that allow smoking.
Also, just as an aside note - the supposed "health issue" is exposure to 2nd hand smoke, not smoking, so the statement 'cancer due to cigarette smoke' is irrelevant.
Do you (or anyone else) have any evidence - a single case - where 2nd hand smoke was identified (by a doctor) as the cause of cancer?
Have you (or anyone else) had the air tested in ANY business in Emporia to see if the air quality falls below OSHA standards?
March 11, 2009 at 8:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Paccifier:
If you are against this ban you can call the town royal @ 343-1232 and request a sign for your yard. Due to our limited budget, we don't have big-tobacco money or Steve Sauder money funding our cause, we are trying to locate signs in high traffic zones. However, due to a recent donation we have more signs, and we will be glad to place one for you if you call and request it.
Steve
March 11, 2009 at 8:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
O; Time and time again, folks have posted information that links second hand smoke to cancer. How is it that you have failed to see it?
What could possibly make the air quality in a Emporia smoking-allowed bar any different than the air quality in a smoking allowed bar in Wichita, Or Kansas City, or Lawrence or anywhere else.
I don't need a test of local air quality to prove that SHS is dangerous in Emporia bars anymore than I need a tornado IN Emporia to prove to me that it could cause as much damage as in Greensburg, Kansas.
C'mon, O, use some common sense.
March 11, 2009 at 8:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
For that matter, I see NO reason to doubt the American Medical Association, The American Cancer Society, the Center for Disease Control, The World Health Organization, The U.S. Surgeon General, all who states that SHS is bad for your health. And since the AMA represents most, if not all, doctors, doesn't that qualify as expert medical testimony? How much more proof do you need.
My advice: Stick to arguing the rights issue. You stand a much a better chance of winning than by arguing that SHS in Emporia is not a health problem.
March 11, 2009 at 8:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
erogna_native:
If you love your children, keep them out of my bar and the 5 or 6 restaurants that still allow smoking. You've only got your choice of 50 or more places to go to with your kids. If you can't decide from that list , HIRE A BABYSITTER YOU CHEAP.
Steve
March 11, 2009 at 8:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
One thing your right about, O, is that we must keep children out of smoking-allowed bars -- or any other place that allows smoking -- so that they don't suffer the health risks linked to SHS. But to go even further, by banning smoking in all public accessible places, children may also avoid suffering the trauma and even the loss of a loved one -- parent, older sibling, other family member -- who contracts cancer or other ailments also linked to SHS.
By the way, I am still waiting for someone to tell me when that poster CHILD for racism and bigotry, Methusla, posts something work reading.
March 11, 2009 at 8:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Irish;
I am so happy that you mentioned the ban in Wichita. While I think a ban is a ban and no ban is good, at least Wichita allowed businesses to buy a smoking permit while exempting "THE CHILDREN" . When EOB proposed this "COMPROMISE" to CAE Bobbie Sauder Looked at our city manager and said "it doesn't protect the workers rights."
What is sad about this is that Teresa Walters, Bobbie or Steve Sauder or our city manager have NEVER asked my employees if they thought this ban was in their best interest.
March 11, 2009 at 8:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Steve: I know a few of your employees, and one or two former employees. I would not be so quick to seek their anti-ban endorsement. Or to have people start asking what they really think. You might not like their answers.
But what do I know, I'm just an Irish terrorist, at least according to your buddy Methusla.
March 11, 2009 at 8:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
And Irish, I was going to save this for a radio spot , but feel the need to talk about it now.
DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD TAKE FOR GOSPEL, EVERYTHING THE SURGEON GENERAL STATES AS FACT?
ANSWER QUICK, I'm getting tired.
Steve
March 11, 2009 at 8:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
We all know that smoking is on the decline in this country. Yet supposedly cancer from cigarette smoke is on the rise. Maybe some of the cancer is caused by other things but we'll never know because we've been so focused on smoking and blaming smokers. I hope we don't miss some medical break through because some people don't like the smell of smoke. It's happened before with HPV. They wrongly blamed cervical cancer on smoking. WHOOPS!
The current laws and the FREE market are sufficient to address the problem with shs. Please let them work and vote NO to this ban. And if you have been waiting for this ban so you can take your kids to the bar with you, you are just wrong.
March 11, 2009 at 9:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
You know what Irish, I made sure all my employess were registered to vote, so if they think this ban is a good idea they can vote for it . And their mean old Greedy boss won't know it. But I still stand by my statement, Not one of them were asked about how they felt about the ban, by the above named people. And I think you may know a few of my Employees as well as you do all your Jewish Friends who take offense to my posts abut Nazi Germany.
Steve
March 11, 2009 at 9:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Come on Irish I know you are still there. Cat got your tongue?
March 11, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jmcmannis (anonymous) says...
Irish just in case you dont know: most of the US SURGEON GENERALS ARE PAID POLITICIANS. that may or may not hold a MD to practice medicine.
Most of those agencies are govermental and we all know that the goverment does not have the best interest of the people of the United States or the World in mind at times.
If it did we never would have gone to Veitnam or Iraq.
Protect your rights vote NO Apr 7th
DONT TREAD ON ME
March 11, 2009 at 9:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
That's an excellent point, seriouslyfolks. People discriminating can skew study results. Interesting. Surely the big pharma wouldn't do that, though. You think so??? Well, maybe............................but just to sell their products, so that's not too bad. A few people missed the prevention, but all's fair in love and war and in a war like this one, there's going to be a few casualties. I mean, c'mon---it IS a health issue, after all. Right???????????
March 11, 2009 at 9:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
it is the same old story from the ban crowd, post s--t without your name and insinuate things as facts and when called on it ,refuse to answer. That's alright Irish, when you post next week, I'll ask you the same questions.
Steve
March 11, 2009 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Good night all.
Vote NO April 7th
Corb
March 11, 2009 at 9:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
"So-called studies and scientific facts."
Hmmph. Ever heard of diol epoxides? I'm guessing not and probably because when someone believes their liberties are being trampled on (whether they are or are not), they choose to turn a blind eye to so called "scientific FACT."
"A study by Tang, a professor of environmental medicine, determined that smoking causes lung cancer. His study focused on a gene that controls cell growth and development. Mutations in this gene can lead to uncontrolled cell growth. Tang introduced a known cancer-causing chemical in cigarette smoke, benzo(a)pyrene diol-epoxide, to a human lung cell. He then observed the chemical's effect on the human lung cell and found that the chemical bonded to the gene, which then became vulnerable to mutation. At this specific site, the cell was not able to repair itself very well. Tang argued that this established strong proof that smoking causes lung cancer because "the carcinogen bound most strongly to the precise site in the gene that is frequently mutated into lung cancer."
Quoted from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi...
Original article:
Carcinogen in cigarettes causes mutation linked to lung cancer; technique should help identify other chemicals associated with human cancer. Ascribe Newswire: Health. October 16, 2002:5-6.
Other resources:
**http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2121/5/13
**http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/26/faulty.dna.repair.could.be.a.risk.factor.lung.cancer.nonsmokers
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking (see the heading "Mechanism")
Lung cancer in you may be caused by SHS. It may not. It's mostly genetics. But unless you've had genetic testing, why play Russian Roulette and risk harming others while you're at it???
Smoke if you want to...just don't subject others to it, especially when there IS "scientific fact" showing it CAN be a cause of cancer. Don't mock science.
March 11, 2009 at 10:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
OR...if you believe the causation is that strong, you could just stay away from it as many of us anti-ban people do. Just a fair idea for the masses.
March 11, 2009 at 11:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
gemini- Your statement, " Lung cancer in you may be caused by SHS. It may not. It's mostly genetics." Is exactly the point that I and others have been trying to get across.
And the following statement by the American Cancer Society, essencially says the same thing.
Overview: Lung Cancer - Small Cell
What Causes Small Cell Lung Cancer?
A risk factor is anything that affects a person's chance of getting a disease such as cancer. Different cancers have different risk factors. Some risk factors, such as smoking, can be controlled. Others, like a person's age or family history, can't be changed.
But risk factors don't tell us everything. Having a risk factor, or even several risk factors, does not mean that you will get the disease. And many people who get the disease may not have had any known risk factors. Even if a person with lung cancer has a risk factor, it is often very hard to know how much that risk factor may have contributed to the cancer.
Still, having several risk factors can make you more likely to develop lung cancer.
March 11, 2009 at 11:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
Overview: Lung Cancer - Small Cell
What Causes Small Cell Lung Cancer?
A risk factor is anything that affects a person's chance of getting a disease such as cancer. Different cancers have different risk factors. Some risk factors, such as smoking, can be controlled. Others, like a person's age or family history, can't be changed.
But risk factors don't tell us everything. Having a risk factor, or even several risk factors, does not mean that you will get the disease. And many people who get the disease may not have had any known risk factors. Even if a person with lung cancer has a risk factor, it is often very hard to know how much that risk factor may have contributed to the cancer.
Still, having several risk factors can make you more likely to develop lung cancer.
Lets see what "CRASS" replies, you know who, has for this.
I think everyone knows from his responses and attacks directed specifically toward me, exactly what kind and caliber of person he is.
March 12, 2009 at 12:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
P.S. And if you know who, can remember correctly. It was not I, who made the first insulting or degrading remarks. I take the kind of " CRAP " you shovel at people from noone with out returning the same or worse . However I will not lower myself to your gutter level again.
March 12, 2009 at 12:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Hey Steve: Remember, it was Methusla who touted the Surgeon General's statements. He got it wrong...typical.
As for making sure your employees are registered to vote -- good for you. And you are correct, thanks to the American way, I believe they will truly vote how they feel.
March 12, 2009 at 1:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
From the Topeka Cap-Journal
http://cjonline.com/news/legislature/...
"I’ve come full circle on smoking bans,” Riederer said. “I was initially against them, but now I fully support them. My patrons are happier and my employees are healthier despite my fears that smoking restrictions would hurt my business.”
--Johnny’s Tavern owner Louie Riederer
He has five bars in Johnson County and one in Douglas County, all are subject to countywide indoor smoking limitations. Customer traffic dipped when Johnson County adopted a ban last year, but has rebounded.
March 12, 2009 at 2:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
irishemporia posted, "O; Time and time again, folks have posted information that links second hand smoke to cancer. How is it that you have failed to see it?
I don't need a test of local air quality to prove that SHS is dangerous in Emporia bars anymore than I need a tornado IN Emporia to prove to me that it could cause as much damage as in Greensburg, Kansas.
C'mon, O, use some common sense."
And I say, time and time again, people have posted information from studies by the American Cancer Socienty and the International Agency on Research on Cancer (part of the World Health Organization) that contradict those statements. People have also posted that OSHA has set permissable exposure levels for all those nasty chemicals you keep referring to.
How is it YOU have failed to see that?
Your statement that you don't need a test of local air quality is another way of saying you don't care about the truth. The ban supporters are the ones who keep saying someone is being harmed, yet you refuse to provide any evidence to back up that lie.
Provide one shred of evidence to show someone is being harmed. Just one. All of those people you claim in your subsequent post, "children may also avoid suffering the trauma and even the loss of a loved one -- parent, older sibling, other family member -- who contracts cancer or other ailments also linked to SHS", surely just one of those people can come on here with their doctor to say their medical problems were caused by 2nd hand smoke. Just one! How long has Emporia been here? How long has smoking been allowed in private businesses? Surely over that period of time, with the number of people who have been exposed to 2nd hand smoke in Emporia - surely there is JUST ONE case that you can point to.
No? Then the claim that someone is being harmed - that someone has contracted cancer due to 2nd hand smoke - is a LIE.
You are the ones making this claim. Prove it.
March 12, 2009 at 5:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Irish;
DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD TAKE FOR GOSPEL, EVERYTHING THE SURGEON GENERAL STATES AS FACT?
You also Posted a quote from a owner of five restaurants, not bars, that stated his business has rebounded. Guess what I've been to two of them since the bans have passed and those two were ignoring the ban. I would still like to hear your answer to the above.
Steve
March 12, 2009 at 6:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
and please quit beating the dead horse. We know you were offended, get over it.
March 12, 2009 at 6:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
gemini;
Benzo[a]pyrene is found in coal tar,
in automobile exhaust fumes (especially from diesel engines),
in all smoke resulting from the combustion of organic material,
and in charbroiled food.
Recent studies have revealed that levels of benzo[a]pyrene in burnt toast are significantly higher than once thought, although it is unproven whether burnt toast is itself carcinogenic.
Cooked meat products, regular consumption of which has been epidemiologically associated with increased levels of colon cancer (although this in itself does not prove carcinogenicity) , have been shown to contain up to 4 ng/g of benzo[a]pyrene, and up to 5.5ng/g in fried chicken[4] and 62.6ng/g in overcooked charcoal barbecued beef.
so it's not just cigarrette smoke huh?
March 12, 2009 at 6:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
This may come as a shock to "irishinemporia". He mentions the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, the CDC, WHO, and the Surgeon General. The first two are PRIVATE foundations, who recieve huge grants from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The CDC and WHO both recieve grants from the same RWJF. RWJF holds over 60,000,000 shares of Johnson and Johnson stock. Their philanthropy is directly affected by how much nicotine replacement products J&J sell. Advertising in this paper is paid for with grants from the Kansas Health Foundation, a private foundation who recieves big grants from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. I was REALLY surprised to hear that the Emporia City Manager is with the pro ban group. While this MIGHT not be illegal, it is SURELY not ethical. This is a political fight, as it is being forced to a vote, by County busybodies. And if the City Attorney aided or assisted the pro ban group in ANY way, this should be reported to the Kansas Attorney General's office or to the Law Association. HOW are city employees allowed to do this in Emporia?
March 12, 2009 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
rbow- I wonder how many bars and restaurants will be able to say that they haven't lost business if some of their good regular customers may have to pay the amount of fines listed below in the State Wide Smoking Ban Bill.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who owns, manages, operates
or otherwise controls the use of any public place, or other area where
smoking is prohibited, to fail to comply with all or any of the provisions
of K.S.A. 21-4009 through 21-4014, and amendments thereto.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person who owns, manages, operates
or otherwise controls the use of any public place, or other area where
smoking is prohibited, to allow smoking to occur where prohibited by law.
Any such person shall be deemed to allow smoking to occur under this
subsection if such person: (1) Has knowledge that smoking is occurring;
or and (2) acquiesces to the smoking under the totality of the
circumstances.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to smoke in any area where
smoking is prohibited by the provisions of K.S.A. 21-4010, and amend-
ments thereto.
(d) Any person who violates any provision of K.S.A. 21-4009 through
21-4014, and amendments thereto, shall be guilty of a cigarette or tobacco
infraction punishable by a fine:
(1) Not exceeding $100 for the first violation;
(2) not exceeding $200 for a second violation within a one year period
after the first violation; or
(3) not exceeding $500 for a third or subsequent violation within a
one year period after the first violation.
For purposes of this subsection, the number of violations within a year
shall be measured by the date the smoking violations occur.
I wonder how many of the bar and restaurant customers will not return to that business after possibly have to pay a $100 to $500 dollar fine for attempting to exercisize one of their personal rights or civil liberties.
March 12, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
driveonby- I feel sorry for you, because by posting any information on this forum that may be based on or have any fact in it at all, you will probably incure the wrath, insults, inuendos, degrading remarks, etc. of some smoking ban supporters, who believe they are all wise and post nothing but true facts and you are not supposed to respond or retaliate in any way shape or form. You are supposed to bow and take the verbal abuse and not respond at all.
March 12, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
I've read lots of information for those supporting the ban. I'm a non smoker who remains unconvinced that this is really all about "public health" and "protecting our chidren." Unfortunately, it's as much about using city, county, and state government to get those out of step with their reality and their world to conform to their standards of "decent" behavior. It's more about using political power against people they seem to detest (I've read their commentary) than it is about concern for the health and welfare of one's neighbor.
This town has far more pressing problems than a few smokers down at the Town Royal and other pubs. In fact, this ban has become a welcome distraction for the commissioners. Using the ban as a smokescreen, they can avoid problems like our high poverty rates, skyrocketing taxes, sub standard propterties, the lack of coherent economic development policy, etc. They practice this avoidance with great skill.
This proposed ban is nothing more than a matter of "straining out gnats while swallowing camels."
I'd be more concerned about what's going on down at the Town Royal and the other taverns if folks were sitting there plotting an overthrow of our government or a domestic terrorist attack. Whether or not they're smoking would be absolutely irrelevant to me if that were happening. But I really doubt that's happening. My guess is there are a lot of folks sitting around swapping old war stories, about how they answered their country's call at a time of peril.
I say, leave the smokers alone.
March 12, 2009 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
netloafer- Amen, and well said.
March 12, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
netloafer
Your post is right on!
"This proposed ban is nothing more than a matter of 'straining out gnats while swallowing camels.'"
and here is a good one from oh4
"OR...if you believe the causation is that strong, you could just stay away from it as many of us anti-ban people do. Just a fair idea for the masses."
March 12, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
methusla,
Don't feel sorry for diveonby, she can handle it. I met her yesterday after she drove on by the Emporia exit and then turned around at the cattle pens to come back and visit us.
She had been in Topeka speaking to the Health& Human Services committee on the state wide smoking ban.
She is a small business owner who has spent countless hours and her own money fighting this, while the foundations and public agencies have HIRED GUNS working on it.
I thank her for her efforts!
She has her facts and is not afraid to share them and could match or better any of the ban supporters who post on here.
Steve
March 12, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
A reminder to all who read or post on here.
It is illegal to remove a political sign from anothers property without permission. It is theft and would appear on your police record. We happen to have a portable video surveillance system that is moved from certain locations to others where signs have been removed. So tell your friends it's not worth a police record, no matter how much you are for or against this issue.
Steve
March 12, 2009 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
AW shucks, cut it out, Steve. ANyway, if we are to follow irishin emporia logic, we should ALL be forced to pack up and leave Kansas, as it is likely that there will be tornadoes.
And we must be protected. I'm willing to take my chances and stay.
March 12, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jmcmannis (anonymous) says...
Netloaf besides Meth and rbow and maybe a few of my arguements,
Yours actually made sense to me. Well said.
rbow I actually like the yellow signs around town, makes me proud that certain citizens are not going to roll over and play dead and let their rights be taken away by the CAEs and T. Walters of the world.
Now where did I put my hemp rope.............
Vote No on Apr 7th
Dont Tread on Me
March 12, 2009 at 2:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Weltha (anonymous) says...
question crack- If these business owners are SOOOO selfish and greedy why do you want to patronize their businesses sooooo badly? Seems to me you would stay as far away from these unsavory people as possible.
Rbow- I owe you an apology (sp) I was bi%&ing awhile back about prices if you remember. Well kinda I guess. Not your prices really but down town in general. The beer was BIGGER than I thought for the price. Your 12oz draws are only a quarter more than what I am used to at my normal stomping grounds. I was getting the served the 16oz and not paying attention. (I wasn't the DD that night) So I humble myself before you and say I am sorry for my mixup. WOW! That was kinda fun.... hee hee
March 12, 2009 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
driveonby- I meant no disrespect with my " I feel sorry for you " remark. But I have posted information that most of the time comes straight from the same sources and organizations that the smoking ban supporters use for posting information. However I have been attacked with all sorts of name calling, insults, degrading and demeaning remarks, etc., by some of the ban smoking supporters. Who seem to believe that it is their " Right " to post or spout all sorts of ban smoking propoganda and scare tactics and their " Right " only, just like this smoking ban they support. They believe that they are the only citizens who have any " RIGHTS or CIVIL LIBERTIES " and noone else is entilted to the same " RIGHTS and CIVIL LIBERTIES " that they are entitled to, or their " RIGHTS and " CIVIL LIBERTIES " mean more and are more important than anyone elses.
I also wish I had been able to meet you, it would have been a pleasure. Keep up the good fight, we are all with you !
Those of you/us in Emporia who wish to preserve our personal rights and civil liberties.
VOTE NO on April 7th.
March 12, 2009 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Weltha,
No apology needed. My prices on somethings are higher than most bars. The reasons;
It's my only source of income, (no Other Job)
My Employees are paid a lot better than most bars.
(They are worth it)!
I own the building and property taxes have gone up for the last 10 years.
We don't run specials to get everyone in town to come in, I'd much rather buy my regulars a drink every now & then just to say thanks for their business and friendship.
Steve
March 12, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Weltha (anonymous) says...
I like your answer mrwho. It wasn't politically correct or a form answer. Way cool.
Rbow- Thanks! Its a really hard thing to do sometimes but I do TRY to admit when I'm wrong or speak to haistilly about something. I do enjoy coming in with my buddies from the other side of the tracks ie: " North Olpe" if ya know who I am speaking of. lol I may just have to make a trip in after work today. You are making me thirsty...... A
March 12, 2009 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
So crack, If this local smoking ban is approved and you and one of your people are at a place of business and one of your people or friends, forgets and lights up a smoke, are you going to tell him/her to get out or you will call the police and have them arrested for violating a law you helped to pass, punishing them because they are a smoker. Oh, and because you are such a good friend, will you offer to help them pay the fine. Also how do you think your friend will feel when they will have a criminal record after they are arrested and you were essentially the cause for demanding that your friend live by your way of living, your life style, your selfish wants and that you basically believe your smoking friends and employer have no personal rights or civil liberties !
Well, I know how I would feel if a so-called friend of mine did that to me.
March 12, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
Steve,
There are TONS of things in the environment that can cause cancer; SHS is just one of them. My point was to prove that legitimate studies have been performed with results indicating the chemicals in SHS are highly likely to cause cancer. But like I said, unless you know each and every gene sequence in your personal genome, why RISK it and even more concerning, why risk other people's lives?
Yes, people can stay away from it, but that's treading on THEIR rights to go where they want and do what they wish. It's not just an issue of smoking in bars or restaurants, but having to walk through it when it is done near a doorway. It's a never ending battle and the town of Emporia will decide it's fate with the vote, as it should be.
But to reiterate my point because it seems to be consistently overlooked, studies have been done proving that SHS IS harmful and likely to cause cancer. There is always going to be an issue on the table that "violates" SOMEONE's rights however when it is a concern of public health, we should all be concerned about making things safer for yourself and your neighbor. There are enough things out there that can kill us, why invite others?
That said, I have been a long time customer of yours and will continue to be regardless of the outcome. You're a great business owner and I respect your leadership in this. I just don't happen to agree with you. See you Saturday.
March 12, 2009 at 4:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Crack- Why don't you tell your friends that you strongly support the no smoking ban now, before the vote ? Is it fear of loosing their friendship ? If it is fear of loosing their friendship, isn't that selfish on your part ? Will you ever tell your friends that you supported the smoking ban and voted yes to adopt it, if it passes or will you let your friends continue to think that you are their friend, even though you believe they are doing you harm ? Why not do the right thing by your friends and tell them that you support the smoking ban and that you believe that they are doing you harm by giving you cancer, etc. with their smoking and SHS. ?
March 12, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
gemini posted, "But to reiterate my point because it seems to be consistently overlooked, studies have been done proving that SHS IS harmful and likely to cause cancer."
No, gemini, what seems to be consistently overlooked is that in 2003, the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study (CPS1) conclulded. That study focused on 35,561 never-smoking Californians married to smokers, who were followed by the Cancer Society for 39 years (1959 to 1998), the tabular results not only--and absolutely -- showed no lung cancer risk whatsoever but actually showed a slightly lower risk than expected among the general never-smoker population.
Let me repeat, The American Cancer society studied 35,000 people over a period of 39 years and found "no lung cancer risk whatsoever ".
I repeat again, "no lung cancer risk whatsoever ".
Can you provide any evidence at all where anyone has been diagnosed with cancer due to 2nd hand smoke?
March 12, 2009 at 6 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
"No, gemini, what seems to be consistently overlooked is that in 2003, the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study (CPS1) conclulded.....etc..etc....."
Mister O,
Interesting. Although, when I research the ACS 2003 study (CPS1), I find the following:
"The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect."
(http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/3...)
That doesn't exactly mean "no lung cancer risk whatsoever" (to quote Mister O).
HOWEVER, the flaws of the "tobacco-industry funded study" (CPS1) are numerous and widely criticized BY the American Cancer Society. Highlights include:
**"No information was collected on other sources of ETS exposure besides spousal smoking
**No information on smoking habits after 1972 was included in the analysis, even though the observation period continued for another 26 years"
Among many others!!!!!!!
(http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/con...)
Therefore based on scientific factual data performed by research scientists with no political agenda (see my previously posted links), YES, there is a tie between SHS chemicals and lung cancer.
Whether the ban passes or not, there is no denying the well-studied relationship between the chemicals in SHS and cancer. If nothing else, please understand the data........
You may believe your rights are being infringed upon, but please do not deny scientific truths in your crusade.
March 12, 2009 at 6:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says...
Many interesting posts. It's sad there's no balance on TV to broadcast antismoking ads before the election. MTV runs about ten minutes of such ads a day just on its own, not to mention all the other channels (See www.TheTruthIsaLie.com )
Hopefully your local printed media will provide a counterbalance.
Meanwhile, to briefly answer a few points here:
1) Researchers finding links between SHS and cancer *do* have an agenda, one set by the grants that fund them. If they want to succeed in their careers and continue to get grants they darn well better find the "right" answers when they do their research. To see how such studies are conducted and twisted read my "Stiletto" at:
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/2...
If you have any substantive criticisms of it please post them here. I will try to stop back to respond.
2) Crack, you're "still being exposed to SHS on a daily basis." Where? Are there no places to go to that ban smoking on their own? If you're talking about sidewalks and such, you *do* realize that you and all the children, will get much GREATER exposure if the ban passes and smokers are out on the sidewalks smoking all the time. (That's one of those "unintended side effects Antismokers pretend to be surprised about after a ban.)
3) Crack, you're correct that you can see and smell smoke in the air. You can see and smell the same thing if you go a McDonald's and sit near a birthday party where the kid blows out candles,. Just because you can smell something in the air, or even see traces of smoke, does NOT mean you are being "harmed" in any rational definition of the word.
4) Eronga, you say "cancer has been on the rise" while SHS has gone down by over 75% in the last 20 years. That should tell you something. Maybe the decreased ventilation that comes into place after bans produces more cancer from offgassing of synthetic materials and human respiration and such. You might be safer withOUT a ban.
4b) As for "the children," check the child studies near the bottom of :
http://www.nycclash.com/Philly.html#E...
Many of them seem to show a PROTECTIVE effect, possibly from strengthened immune systems, resulting from some level of childhood exposure to secondary smoke. (And don't argue with ME on that... argue with all the different researchers who did the different studies!)
5) Finally, there is a very GOOD reason to doubt the AMA, and ACS etc etc: their goal is to reduce smoking. They believe smoking is bad for people's health. I wouldn't argue with them on that. BUT... they also believe that the most effective way to reduce smoking is to promote smoking bans that 'denormalize" smokers and make it more difficult and inconvenient to smoke. THAT is their motivation for twisting the truth and THAT is where I disagree with what they do.
Read that "Stiletto" referenced above. Come back and criticize it.
Michael J. McFadden,
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
March 12, 2009 at 8:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rabblerouser (anonymous) says...
There have been plenty of studies on the effects of second hand smoke, but I am sick and tired of walking into a non-smoking restaurant only to run into second hand smoke because some inconsiderate a-ho-- couldn't wait until they was away from the entrance to light up. I would like to challenge any of the "I have rights" folks to come up with ONE, JUST ONE healthy benefit from second hand smoke. Smoking is kinda like driving a car. It is a privilege, not a right. I for one am not voting for a Ban, but voting for clean air so that I and my family do not have to be subject to filthy second hand smoke. Again, please tell me ONE, JUST ONE healthy benefit there is from second hand smoke.
March 12, 2009 at 10:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
rabblerouser - You don't think that will be worse once people have to start going outside? Now not only will they light up at the door, they will stand there to finish the cigarette too. They won't be moving on to their car.
March 12, 2009 at 10:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
gemini posted, ""The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect."
(http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/...) That doesn't exactly mean "no lung cancer risk whatsoever"
Actually, that is exactly what it means. The study included over 35,000 people over a period of 39 years. All those people over that period of time and It was unable to find a relationship between 2nd hand smoke and tobacco related mortality means. How can that possibly mean anything else?
Conversely, 'Does not rule out a small effect' does not mean the same thing as 'yes it causes cancer'.
Your insinuation that "tobacco-industry funded study" somehow invalidates the results is also wrong. Who actually conducted the research? The tobacco industry? No. According to the link you provided (bjm.com) and the articles I've read, the study was conducted by American Cancer Society (directly from your link, "CPS I is a prospective cohort study begun by the American Cancer Society in October 1959") Also from the link you provided, the long-term follow-up study was conducted by the School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, and actually involved "51,343 men and 66, 751 women" (numbers quoted from your link).
If we are going to invalidate research based on who funded it, shouldn't we apply that criteria equally to both sides? Shouldn't we also invalidate research funded by those with a vested interest in banning smoking?
You also stated, "there is no denying the well-studied relationship between the chemicals in SHS and cancer."
I can actually agree with that, however, OSHA (the Federal agency charged with protecting the health of workers) as set permissible levels of exposure for those chemicals in 2nd hand smoke (levels where exposure is not harmful). The director of OSHA as stated that it would be very rare to find a workplace where the levels of 2nd hand smoke are dangerous to health. Which is why I and others have repeatedly asked for those who believe there is an establishment in Emporia that violates OSHA's regulations, to have the air tested and prove it.
Another of your statements, ". If nothing else, please understand the data........"
I agree, please follow your own advice.
Finally, "You may believe your rights are being infringed upon, but please do not deny scientific truths in your crusade."
I'm not the one denying scientific truths and this isn't 'my crusade'. It's CAE's crusade.
March 13, 2009 at 5:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
rabblerouser posted, "I am sick and tired of walking into a non-smoking restaurant only to run into second hand smoke because some inconsiderate a-ho-- couldn't wait until they was away from the entrance to light up."
Once again, we have evidence that it is NOT a health issue. It is a personal preference issue. "I don't like smelling smoke" so I want to pass a law that makes everyone just like me.
March 13, 2009 at 6:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
As Irishemporia won't answer my questions,
I'll just "Toss" this out there.
Irish quote,
"For that matter, I see NO reason to doubt the American Medical Association, The American Cancer Society, the Center for Disease Control, The World Health Organization, The U.S. Surgeon General, all who states that SHS is bad for your health."
Well Irish, do you remember a Surgeon General who stated that children should be taught sex education starting at 3rd grade? Or that children should be taught to masturbate in order to stop the spread of aids. Or that teenagers should be taught, (using a bananna) on the correct usage of condums? Now we have one stating "there is no safe level of exposure to 2nd hand smoke"
Just because they are the Surgeon General, it doesn't mean they are rational, intelligent adults.
Steve
March 13, 2009 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rabblerouser (anonymous) says...
MIsterO " Once again, we have evidence that it is NOT a health issue. It is a personal preference issue. "I don't like smelling smoke" so I want to pass a law that makes everyone just like me."
By no means is it merely a preference issue. My father was on disability at age 54 and died of cancer and emphysema. SHS burns my eyes and Irritates my throat causing me to cough uncontrollably. Not a positive health affect. My daughter was using an inhaler twice a day and always sick while living with her mother breathing SHS on a daily basis. After we got her, she no longer had to use the inhaler and was seldom sick. So, don't dare try and say that it is merely a preference!!!
Again, Name ONE health benefit from SHS!
March 13, 2009 at 9:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
rabblerouser posted, "So, don't dare try and say that it is merely a preference!!!"
Too late, you and all the others who have said you avoid restaurants and bars because you don't like the smell of smoke have already shown that it is a preference, not a health issue.
Here, I'll say it again: This whole issue is not about health - it is about personal preferences and those who want everyone to be just like them.
One more time: It is merely a preference.
As to your second comment, "Again, Name ONE health benefit from SHS!"
I'll be glad to do that...just as soon as you provide ONE example of a case of cancer, heart disease, or any other chronic health condition where the doctor has diagnosed the cause as being directly related to exposure to 2nd hand smoke.
March 13, 2009 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
As an aside note:
"My father was on disability at age 54 and died of cancer and emphysema."
Was that due to 2nd hand smoke?
"My daughter was using an inhaler twice a day and always sick while living with her mother breathing SHS on a daily basis."
Is your daughter's doctor willing to register on this forum and declare that her health problems were directly attributable to exposure to 2nd hand smoke?
March 13, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
MisterO--
Using your same kind of logic, no one is killed by car accidents either, they usually have die of massive bleeding or breaking their neck.
March 13, 2009 at 11:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
mrwho--
Not even close to the same argument.
March 13, 2009 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck posted, "MisterO--Using your same kind of logic, no one is killed by car accidents either, they usually have die of massive bleeding or breaking their neck."
To use your words, not the same thing at all. In your scenario, if the doctor knew the person had been in a car accident, he would have no problem saying cause of death: trauma directly attributed to car accident.
Similarly, if a patient were suffering health problems directly attributed to 2nd hand smoke, the doctor would have no problem saying (for example) cause of death: cancer due to exposure to 2nd hand smoke, or heart disease due to exposure to 2nd hand smoke, or whatever.
The problem (as so many have pointed out) is that nobody has been able to establish a direct link between 2nd hand smoke and a cancer patient, so to say that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer without being able to show that someone's cancer was indeed caused by 2nd hand smoke, is a lie.
I can guarantee you that if CAE or the Surgeon General, or the American Cancer Society could point at one patient and say, "This poor person's cancer was caused by exposure to 2nd hand smoke" that poor person would spend the rest of his days in luxury because he would be the holy grail of the ban supporters.
Why do you think think such a person has not been found and paraded over every TV station and newspaper on the country?
Because such a person does not exist.
Why? Because nobody can show a correlation between exposure to 2nd hand smoke and cancer.
Yes, 2nd hand smoke contains nasty checmicals, some of which are known to cause cancer. BUT (once again, as so many have pointed out), OSHA has established that exposure to those chemicals is not harmful unless the concentration of those chemicals reaches a certain level. And as the director of OSHA has stated, such levels would be very rare. I would go so far as to say such levels don't exist in any establishment in Emporia.
Prove me wrong - test the air.
March 13, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
mrwho--
You said it all "2nd hand smoke contains some nasty chemicals, some of which are know to cause cancer"
If you have something that contains chemicals that are known to cause cancer, and it is your choice to do that activity, and by doing that activity, which serves no purpose other than to satisfy your own need, why would you force everyone around you to expose themselves to those chemicals that are known to cause cancer?
March 13, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Words of wisdom from ole cracky:
"Sure, there are places to go that are non-smoking, but I really like the steak at a certain restaurant. Unfortunately, I have to sacrifice my health to go there. I shouldn't have to sacrifice my health to go to these public places."
That steak you are eating has some of the same dangerous chemicals in it as shs, but I guess it's ok for you to committ suicide by ingesting those chemicals yourself. You just don't want nasty smokers helping you on your way down the road of self-destruction.
Me
March 13, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
MisterO & all ban opponents ;
It does not matter whether you try to explain the fact that all of the research findings, absolutely state that SHS " CAN or MAY " cause cancer or that SHS is " A RISK FACTOR " in the cause of cancer and that if a person is exposed to a " RISK FACTOR " , that person may or may not get cancer, etc. But what these ban smoking and control zealots absolutly refuse to take into consideration is the fact that SHS is not and never will be the total, by itsself, single solitary cause or risk cancer for causing cancer, heart disease or another disease that they are so afraid of getting or catching that may or may not cause their death.
There is no use of showing and proving to them that the burning of biomass materials and the smoke and SHS created by burning biomass materials are just as hazardous or more hazardous as tobacco product smoke/SHS or that some of the every day products that they use and are exposed to everyday have some of the same chemicals in them that tobacco smoke/SHS has in them .
March 13, 2009 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
As you can see from " cracks " response. If being exposed to anything other than tobacco smoke/SHS, has the same chemicals present in it and may pose the same risk as SHS, thats perfectly acceptable, because it is " necessary ".
To me that means that this ban smoking issue is not a " HEALTH " issue but a " RIGHTS, POWER & CONTOL " issue. Also for some one to make a statement such as " Even if there is a remote chance that it could harm you, why wouldn't we ban it? " and then believe if anything that has some of the same ingrediants in it that SHS has, but will be tolerated because it is " necessary " is totally beyond logic and reasoning.
March 13, 2009 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
This whole ban smoking campaign is nothing more than an attempt to target and control certain individuals lives and way of living and force them to live under the rules of certain individuals. Its not about " Health " and never has been !
UNLESS YOU WISH TO LIVE ACCORDING TO SOMEONE ELSES RULES. VOTE NO ON APRIL 7TH
March 13, 2009 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
crackinsack posted, "With something as senseless as SHS, however, I believe it is worth banning because it serves no purpose to society. Even if there is a remote chance that it could harm you, why wouldn't we ban it? It's not like it is doing anything else for us. This is why I'm not against auto exhaust or smoke from a wood stove or things of that nature. These things are useful and shouldn't be banned. "
Yet again, we have evidence that it is more about personal preferences than a health issue.
Crackinsac, et. al., you want to ban something not because it's a health issue, but because it's not useful TO YOU.
Those who may find it useful to them don't count, because it's not useful TO YOU.
Keep posting. The more you do, the more obvious your motives become.
March 13, 2009 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crack;
Who has the right to tell anyone what is necessary or unnecssary in their lives and why do you believe that you or anyone else has the right to decide what is necessary or unnecessary to anyone else but yourself. If you and others believe that SHS is as harmful to you as you believe that it is, then do the " NECESSARY and RIGHT THING" and just stay away or leave what you and others believe is an atmosphere or environment that is unhealthy to you and unnecessary to you and your beliefs and stop trying to make other peoples decisions for them. Also what you believe may be necessary to and for you may not be looked at as necessary to someone else. " HEALTH " issue, I don't think so ! " POWER AND CONTROL " issue, I believe that is all it is !
DON'T LET BAN SUPPORTERS TELL YOU/US HOW TO LIVE YOUR LIVES ! VOTE NO ON APRIL 7th !
March 13, 2009 at 5:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Hey Meth: Considering your logic, I suppose it is OK to go play on the highway. Afterall, what's the RISK FACTOR that you CAN or MAY get hit by a truck?
Does SHS really have to be "itsself (sp), single solitary cause or risk cancer for causing cancer, heart disease or another disease" to warrant concern? To warrant regulation and further regulation? Doesn't the fact that it does contribute to these diseases justify the need for regulation or further regulation?
March 13, 2009 at 7:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
O: you've been given plenty of proof of the effects of SHS, i.e. the AMA, WHO, CDC, ACS, and a bunch of other notable health-related agencies. It is you who choose not to accept WELL established facts about SHS. You are not likely to find a doctor who is willing to post here. Why should they? To persuade you? Not worth their time. But, do yourself a favor and call a few...you pick who you want...ask them what they think about second hand smoke. By all means, post the names of the ones who agree that SHS is not a health risk. You seem to be confident that the majority of doctors will agree with you. Heck, if you can accurately list the names of doctors who agree with you, I will not only quit posting on these forums, but vote against the ban as well.
C'Mon, O: I am giving you the chance to prove your statement.
March 13, 2009 at 8:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Rbow: You are right, I believe, when you set that steak can cause cancer. I am certain their are plenty of other foods that can do the same.
The difference is that we need food to survive. We don't need second hand smoke in our publicly accessible places.
The same can be said for cars, and manufacturing plants, etc., the toxin many of them spew can cause cancer. Can we afford to shut them down? No. Can we live without them? No, sadly enough, although it would be nice .
Can we live without second hand smoke? Yes!
March 13, 2009 at 8:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
Sure thing 1st_sargeant....just as soon as you have the air tested in one of these Emporia businesses and prove the air is unhealthy.
By the way, about the WHO:
A study was conducted by the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC) part of the World Health Organization (WHO). The research ran for 10 years and covered 7 European countries. The study concluded there was no statistically significant risk for non-smokers who either lived with or worked with smokers. On March 8, 1998, the British newspaper The Telegraph reported "The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could have even a protective effect."
The American Cancer Society?
The American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study (CPS1)-- shows the same results as the WHO study.
Focusing on 35,561 never-smoking Californians married to smokers, who were followed by the Cancer Society for 39 years (1959 to 1998), the tabular results not only--and absolutely -- showed no lung cancer risk whatsoever but actually showed a slightly lower risk than expected among the general never-smoker population.
As to your statement that "I have been given plenty of proof of the effects of SHS" - BS. The only thing I have been given are skewed interpretations of studies that say there MAY be an increased risk. Not that it causes cancer or heart disease - only that there may be an increased risk. That's why I ask for a medical professional to come on here and say they are treating someone with health problems caused by 2nd hand smoke. But it's not going to happen and I know it. And I know why - because exposure to 2nd hand smoke hasn't caused any of the health "risks" that were predicted by statistics.
C'mon yourself - if 2nd hand smoke is such a risk, surely emergency rooms across America are overflowing with those poor victims. And surely at least one of those victims is being treated by a doctor.
You all are the ones making the claim of the health risks. Test the air or bring forth the cancer victim.
Theoretical bodies and potential casualties are nothing but phantom numbers that mean nothing.
March 13, 2009 at 8:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
As I thought, O, you can't produce a single doctor. All I am asking is a name.
March 13, 2009 at 8:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
O: Then why does the American Cancer Society, on its own website (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/con...) state the following:
"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
March 13, 2009 at 9 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
As I thought...you can't produce a single doctor either...or a body...or proof that anyone has contracted cancer as a direct result of 2nd hand smoke.
As I thought...you can't prove there is a single establishment in Emporia who's air quality violates OSHA's established safety levels.
Those numbers you've posted from the American Cancer Society (the so-called 35,000 heart disease deaths, the so-called 3,000 lung cancer deaths) - where do those numbers come from?
Hint: from theoretical numbers generated by a computer - not from real bodies.
Which is why you won't find a single doctor anywhere who is willing to say they are treating a patient who's health problems are directly related to exposure to 2nd hand smoke.
Take your fingers out of your ears and think about this:
The American Cancer Society is willing to post those theoretical numbers (the numbers state without a doubt that those deaths are caused directly by 2nd hand smoke), but not a single doctor will come forward to verify them with a body or a patient.
Why do you think that is?
Go back up and read the hint again.
We can go back and forth like this forever if you choose:
Your turn.
March 13, 2009 at 9:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
C'mon, O: Give me a name!!
Heck, I'll give you a name of a doctor -- a cardiologist -- who sees patients right here in Emporia: Donney Kastner of the Cotton-O'Neil Clinic in Topeka. Here is his number: (800) 468-0177. Give him a call!! See what he has to say.
For that matter, how about Sen. (Dr.) Jim Barnett? His views on smoking are well documented. Give him a call. See what he has to say.
Here's another: Steven K. Galson. He is not only an M.D., but the country's top health educator, a military Rear Admiral, the acting U.S. Secretary of Health and the acting U.S. Surgeon General. Give him a call!!
For that matter, contact the Kansas Hospital Association and get its take on the smoking ban. I can give you a preview, from http://www.kha-net.org/Trustees/Trust...
Poll Shows Kansans Favor Smoke-Free Ordinances
The Sunflower Foundation recently released the results of a statewide public opinion poll of Kansas voters. The results of the poll indicate a strong majority (71 percent) of Kansas voters favor laws prohibiting smoking in all indoor workplaces and public facilities.
The poll, conducted by Public Opinion Strategies, also found Kansas voters overwhelmingly (83 percent) believe secondhand cigarette smoke is a health hazard. In addition, support was strong (64 percent) for increasing the current 79-cent tax on a pack of cigarettes.
The Kansas Hospital Association and other health care advocates met with the Sunflower Foundation prior to the public release of this statewide poll. We were all optimistic that this new data will help policymakers understand how tobacco-related issues are perceived by Kansans. This strong support of tobacco-free efforts could provide an opportunity for Kansas leaders to take action in ways that could make a difference in the health of Kansans for many years to come.
March 13, 2009 at 9:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
And once again, I don't have to test the smoke in Emporia's bar to know it is toxic. Cigarette smoke is cigarette smoke, no matter where you go. Just like a tornado is a tornado. I don't have to wait for another one to hit Emporia just to know it will cause damage.
March 13, 2009 at 9:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Or for that matter, that it even could cause damage. It is called common sense.
March 13, 2009 at 9:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I will pose the same question to you 1stsgt_retired that I put to crack !
Who has the right to tell anyone what is necessary or unnecssary in their lives and why do you believe that you or anyone else has the right to decide what is necessary or unnecessary to anyone else but yourself ? Also do you believe that everything you do in your everyday life you deem necessary to you is looked at as necessary by others ?
And what would be your thoughts and reaction to an individual or group of individuals who were attempting to ban any one of the things you deem as necessary to your way of life and living ?
I would imagine you and the other ban smoking advocates and supporters would protest so loudly that everone in Emporia would think that the tornado sirens were sounding.
And standing in the middle of a highway would be your choice to do, just as exposing yourself to something you believe is hazardous to your health, such as SHS is your choice, whether SHS is unnecessary to your way of thinking, way of living or not. Just as it would be your choice not to stand in the middle of that highway. Both instances are choices to be made by the individual and no one else !
March 13, 2009 at 9:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
Here's something else that might interest you:
That 3,000 deaths number? Came from an EPA report (http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.g...)
The EPA report? Resulted in a Congressional Inquiry (http://www.pipes.org/Articles/Bliley....).
From the legal Inquiry:
"EPA's risk assessment on ETS released in January of this year claims that ETS exposure is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer cases per year in the United States. Analysis of the risk assessment reveals, however, that EPA was able to reach
that conclusion only by ignoring or discounting major studies, and by deviating from generally accepted scientific standards."
"EPA's willingness to distort the science in order to justify its
classification of ETS as a "Group A" or "known human" carcinogen seems to stem from the Agency's determination early on to advocate smoking bans and restrictions as a socially desirable goal. "
"In addition to the contracting violations mentioned at the outset, those irregularities include conflicts of interest by both Agency staff involved in preparation of the risk assessment and the members of the Science Advisory Board panel selected to provide a supposedly independent evaluation of the document. "
Final result?
When the matter got to court, a federal judge, after interviewing a range of scientists for 4 years, called the EPA report that had reached this conclusion an outright "fraud" and overturned (invalidated, vacated) that conclusion.
March 13, 2009 at 9:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired posted, "And once again, I don't have to test the smoke in Emporia's bar to know it is toxic. "
You make the claim that it's toxic, but can't prove it. Therefore the claim that the air is toxic is a lie.
March 13, 2009 at 9:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
More rhetoric by 1sgt_retired, "It is called common sense."
Something many of the ban supporters are apparently in short supply of.
March 13, 2009 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
O: Right now, the only thing that interests me is the results of your calls to the above doctors, or any doctor. Give me the name of a local legit medical doctor who is willing to say there is no link between SHS and cancer. I'll be happy to call them. Heck, give me the name of any legit medical doctor who agrees with the above statement. I'll call them, too.
March 13, 2009 at 9:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says...
Mister O wrote to rabblerouser, "Too late, you and all the others who have said you avoid restaurants and bars because you don't like the smell of smoke have already shown that it is a preference, not a health issue." You've brought up a good point Mr. O. Looking back over a number of threads on different boards recently I was struck by how it seemed almost universal that the few Antismokers who actually DID try to respond rationally to arguments about bans almost ALWAYS ended their postings with some sort of "Keep your stinky smoke out of my face" comment.
As to providing an example of ONE nonsmoker who was "killed by SHS" you've set the bar pretty low. After all, Antismokers claim that there have been FIVE MILLION killed by secondary smoke in the last 20 years. They should have no problem at all providing a list of just 10% of that number, 500,000, for us to be awed by. Unless they're lying of course.
As for Crack's steak... does he ever think about the children forced to breathe the pollution from his pleasure? Take a quick look at the little video I made of a Burger King near Doylestown PA when their kitchen "smoke-scrubber" evidently went on the fritz:
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules...
Of course normally their filters remove all the visible part of that smoke, but as the Antismokers will tell us all too quickly, air filters can't remove the DEADLY part of it. Clearly we all need to move to an unfired-food vegan sort of diet. Or perhaps only eat boiled. burgers. Yum.
1sgt would like to see a doctor post here? I actually know a few who've gone public on agreeing about the falsehoods in the antismoking movement. I'll pass this on to see if one of them can take time to make a visit.
btw, 1sgt, I believe I already posted the reason why the ACS etc say those things about secondary smoke: they believe it's an effective way to reduce people smoking. As Lady Elaine Murphy of the British House of Lords put it to me in an email once while defending their smoking ban:
"Dear Mr McFadden,
You and many others have completely missed the point about smoking and health. The aim is reduce the public acceptability of smoking and the culture which surrounds it."
THAT is why you see smoking bans... NOT because of any real threat from ETS. As you point out: ETS deaths are imaginary numbers generated by a computer program (It's called SAMMEC) and they'll give any numbers you want if you put the right formulae in there.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
March 13, 2009 at 9:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Mr. McFadden: Just post the name of the doctor. I'll be happy to give him a call.
March 13, 2009 at 9:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired:
You've posted the names and phone numbers of the doctors - YOU call them and ask if they are willing to come on here and say they have ever treated anyone - ever - who had cancer or heart disease that they are willing to say was caused by exposure to 2nd hand smoke.
You are the one making the claim - the burden of proof is yours.
Otherwise such statements are lies.
Your turn.
March 13, 2009 at 9:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Mr. McFadden, I emailed you through your website. I hope you can take the time to respond.
Thanks,
Jonathan
March 13, 2009 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
I don't have to ask them, and I won't. You asked for names. I've given them to you. Here is your chance to prove your claim, even if you don't want to post the results.
I will be happy to call the names of any doctors you care to post here.
March 13, 2009 at 9:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired posted, "I don't have to ask them, and I won't."
Big surprise there.
"You asked for names. I've given them to you."
Maybe you could refresh my memory by quoting where I asked for the names of any doctors? I asked for any doctor who was willing to register on this site and state he/she was treating a patient who was suffering health problems directly related to exposure to 2nd hand smoke.
March 13, 2009 at 9:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Can anyone tell me why the agencies of the Federal Govt. HHS, 0SHA, NIOSH, set safe exposure limits on all toxins, called PELS . And if we are going to insist on banning something without even knowing if the levels of toxins in the air are at dangerous levels then why would there even be a need for safe levels set by the HHS, OSHA, NIOSH in the first place ? Wouldn't it be more sensible to test the air in the places that the ban smoking advocates fear and make sure the levels of toxins are at unsafe levels, before punishing someone for doing something that may not be causing a hazardous situation at all.
A great man once said , " The only thing we have to fear is fear itself ! " And some of you/us are fearing without knowing ! This fear is due, I believe, entirely to a campaign of fear being perpetrated by the CAE, CAI, clean air coalitions and those who have been taken in by their fear propaganda !
March 13, 2009 at 10:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Call it a compromise. I gave you names, you give me names, If you won't, then you leave us no choice but to conclude that you can't.
March 13, 2009 at 10:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Meth: Explain to me how we can expect SHS to be less toxic in Emporia than somewhere else, especially after several agencies have stated that there is not effective filtration system that will complete remove the risk.
March 13, 2009 at 10:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
MichaelJMcFadden;
As you have probably noticed from my posts. I have said time and time again that this ban smoking crusade is nothing more nothing less than a " POWER and CONTROL " issue and I believe that with every fibre of my being.
March 13, 2009 at 10:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired posted, "Call it a compromise."
Compromise nothing. You said I asked for names. I don't believe I did, and I think you know that.
You seem to have some issues with truth.
You make ridiculous claims that someone is somehow being harmed by exposure to 2nd hand smoke, yet can offer no proof.
You offer to meet with Steve and test the air in the Town Royal to see if it's unhealthy, and then in this very thread, you post that you won't do it.
You make the claim that 3,000 people die from exposure to 2nd hand smoke, yet when you are shown where those numbers come from, you claim you aren't interested.
Have you ever considered counseling to deal with these truth issues?
March 13, 2009 at 10:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired;
That was a nice side step to my question, but it did not answer my question. Typical !
March 13, 2009 at 10:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
1sgt;
What would you say if I told you I went ahead and had a air quality test of my bar done and as a control the company did a comparison test at the school board offices at the old Mary Herbert School? Want to hear the results? Well here they are anway. While the air did show a marked increase in the levels of nicotine, compared to the school, they were still well below levels established by osha . However the school board air quality showed high particulate levels of asbestos, benzine, arsenic and to top it off black mold. This is in the same building where EDA and CAE have their offices. What do you have to say?
Steve
March 13, 2009 at 10:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
1: Did you forward the results to the Board of Education office so that they can take the appropriate action?
2: Who did the study?
3: Not to doubt your word, but are you willing to provide some official documentation?
March 13, 2009 at 10:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
O: I have no issues with truth. I seek the truth. I am asking you to provide me the names of doctors who will side with you. I have given you names. Can't you do the same...in the interest of truth?
Meth: The answer, restated, is that there is no need to test the air in Emporia because there is nothing to indicate it would be any different than in any other city. It would also not be cost effective. Does that make it any clearer?
Rbow: I have emailed your statement to Dr. John Heim and members of the BOE. Obviously, the health of the district employees and visitors to Mary Herbert could be at stake.
Thank you for your community service.
March 13, 2009 at 10:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
RBOW: I think I will email it to the Now you Know portion of the Gazette, just encase the BOE does not take it seriously. Give me an email address and I will CC it to you, too.
March 13, 2009 at 10:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
1. No I Didn't, I paid for the study and I'm not going to give to the scool board.
2. An unquestionable scientific company that provides air quality testing for the government.
3. No, you said you didn't need any study to prove my air was toxic, and I didn't hold you to our earlier bet.
Steve
March 13, 2009 at 10:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
well, you can click on my username to e-mail me and thanks for your civic mindelessness.
Steve
March 13, 2009 at 10:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
good maybe we can get some testing done at PUBLIC BUILDINGS and public expense to prove all public buildings in emporia don't have toxic levels of chemicals.
March 13, 2009 at 10:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
I sent it to the following address: nhorst@usd253.org, kturner@usd253.org, mschreiber@sbcglobal.net, Glen.Strickland@usd253.org, Mike.Helbert@usd253.org, grriles@wcnoc.com, mcrouch1@emporia.edu, mhelmer@kansascommerce.com, bmzwindsor@cableone.net, newsroom@emporiagazette.com, jheim@usd253.org
Here is the message:
Dr. Heim and others,
Steve Corbin of Town Royal bar recently indicated on the Emporia Gazette forums website that he had the air quality tested in Mary Herbert. He stated the following:
"What would you say if I told you I went ahead and had a air quality test of my bar done and as a control the company did a comparison test at the school board offices at the old Mary Herbert School? Want to hear the results? Well here they are anway. While the air did show a marked increase in the levels of nicotine, compared to the school, they were still well below levels established by osha . However the school board air quality showed high particulate levels of asbestos, benzine, arsenic and to top it off black mold. This is in the same building where EDA and CAE have their offices."
His statement has me concerned for the welfare of district employees and patrons who conduct business in Mary Herbert. Is anything being done to remedy this? Please commend Mr. Corbin for bringing this to the attention of the public and district officials.
Jonathan
March 13, 2009 at 10:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Isn't it interesting that 1sgt doesn't need a study done to know the air is toxic at my bar. When I give him a hypothetical answer, ie: (What If I told you), He goes off firing e-mails to the school board and Gazette. I know where your going here man and before you go any farther, you had better look back at your earlier posts about the air in MY Bar being Toxic. The whole exercise above was to show how hypocritcal the anti-smokers are in their arguments and I think it worked just fine.
Steve
March 13, 2009 at 10:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired posted, "O: I have no issues with truth. I seek the truth. I am asking you to provide me the names of doctors who will side with you. I have given you names. Can't you do the same...in the interest of truth?"
Are you also impaired in some way that we should be aware of? It seems you not only have trouble with honesty, you are having some difficulty comprehending what is being posted.
Once again (and I'll type slowly this time) - I didn't ask for names. I asked if there were any doctors willing to post here under their real names and state that they are treating a patient with health problems directly attributed to exposure to 2nd hand smoke.
And...side with me on what? What exactly am I supposed to have a doctor side with me on?
March 13, 2009 at 10:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Steve: well, I sent the email to the appropriate people. I guess better safe than sorry is all I can say. It is an old building and the quality of air as you indicated comes as no surprise.
O: Don't call the names of the doctors I listed. That's fine. I agree it is not what you asked for. However, please give me some names of doctor's you think I should call and I will. My plan is to ask if there is a link from SHS to cancer. Are there any other questions you would like asked?
I believe I am right on this issue, but I have been wrong before. Now is your chance to put me in my place.
March 13, 2009 at 10:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
O, Meth, Etc.:Let's take it a step further: I get the feeling that you don't consider the CDC, AMA, WHO, ACS, and other sources cited here as credible.
Please give me the names of agencies you do see as credible and I will give them a call as well.
March 13, 2009 at 11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired posted, "please give me some names of doctor's you think I should call and I will. My plan is to ask if there is a link from SHS to cancer. Are there any other questions you would like asked?"
Fer cryin' out loud, dude....what is it that you are having such a hard time understanding? Are you really having such a hard time understanding that simple phrase or are you being deliberately obtuse?
Once again, for the last time, I asked if there were any doctors willing to post here under their real names and state that they are treating a patient with health problems directly attributed to exposure to 2nd hand smoke.
Feel free to call ANY doctor of your choosing and read the above to him/her.
March 13, 2009 at 11:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
I know plenty of doctors who have treated victims of second hand smoke. I don't know any who would be willing to post here, under their own name. Honestly, why would they want to? They'll probably just get attacked.
I give. I can't meet your challenge.
So here is mine:
--Call the doctors on my list and asked them those questions.
--Give me the list of doctors you think I should call and I will do the same.
I gave you four names. Please do the same. that's all I am asking.
March 13, 2009 at 11:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tmegredy (anonymous) says...
Try this:
My Dad, Richard Megredy, died on Dec. 24, 1978, in El Dorado. His doctor was Ben White, now deceased. I will never forget Dr. White telling my mother, my siblings and I that if my father had not smoked, they could have kept his heart beating. A tough thing to hear when you are 20 years old.
Now, I realize that we are not talking second hand smoke, but I know he was around plenty of people who also smoked. It is worth some thought.
Tod Megredy
Emporia
March 13, 2009 at 11:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
1stsgt_retired;
And was the toxic levels in all these other citys tested to see if the toxins in the air were at safe levels or unsafe levels or did the ban smoking army just blindly demand that smoking be banned with no knowlege that the toxin levels in the air were within Government Standards or exceeded Government Standards ?
As I stated earlier the Government agencies, HHS, OSHA, NIOSH have mantaded certain PELS of all toxins in the air we breath and are exposed to.
Obviously the ban smoking advocates don't want to know whether or not they are forcing people to do something without knowing if the air is toxic ! Perhaps they/you are afraid of the results of an air quality test.
No sir, if this were truly a " HEALTH " issue there should have been air toxicity testing done, before even proposing a smoking ban ! Couldn't the CAE have used some of the grant money they received to have the air tested in all of the smoking allowed businesses, to be sure the toxin levels were indeed harmful, before shouting " THESE PLACES ARE HARFUL TO EVERYONE" ! NO sir, this is a " POWER and CONTROL " campaign by certain individuals !
March 13, 2009 at 11:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Meth: I guess it is because the surgeon general, someone you cited as a credible source, said no level of SHS was safe.
This is a quote from a study I believe you cited:
"Secondhand smoke is dangerous in any amount, and the only way to protect people from that danger is to eliminate indoor smoking. So says a new report by US Surgeon General Richard Carmona. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke was released Tuesday."
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/con...
March 13, 2009 at 11:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I also believe that the City Commissioners should have demanded to see some reports of air quality testing that was done by reputable and trustworthy testing agencies or companies, before even considering the ban smoking proposal from the CAE and I believe that the City Commissioners should have demanded that since the CAE initiated the smoking ban proposal, the CAE should pay for the testing or the smoking ban proposal would not even be considered !
This is the " RIGHT, FAIR and IMPARSHIAL " way this smoking ban issue should have been handled !
VOTE NO ON APRIL 7th !
March 13, 2009 at 11:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Maybe Stevie will share the results of his study, especially since it backs his position.
March 13, 2009 at 11:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired;
I don't dispute the fact that is what was stated in the SG report. What I question is the fact that this statement was based on numerous reports from independent research organizations, that depend on grants from various different groups, organizations and because of this fact the demand for certain results from these various grant givers may possibly affect the test results. Yes I am as guilty as anyone for stating supposed true facts from the SG report. You and others have posted facts from the SG report also, so you and others are as guilty as I am !
The only two chapters in the SG report that may have any validity to them at all are the chapters on " METHODOLOGIC ISSUES" and " CONFOUNDING " .
March 14, 2009 at 12:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired;
However, I still believe that noone has the right to dictate to nor decide for anyone, what is necessary or unnecessary in the way another person lives their life !
March 14, 2009 at 12:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says...
1st, as I noted in an email to you I have invited two doctors to post. No promises on whether they will. I also recommended you visit Dr. Siegel's blog at
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
to learn a bit about the lies and propaganda tactics of Antismokers. btw, Dr. Siegel is actually on your side regarding workplace smoking bans: he just happens to be more honest than most of his colleagues about their slimy techniques.
Methusla, there have been many different studies of various chemical levels related to smoking in bars and such. I believe of all the thousands of possible elements that the Antismokers claim to be problematic, the only one they've been able to pin down at all with any success in terms of concentration is something called FPM 2.5. FPM 2.5 is produced in small amounts by high temperature industrial combustion/incineration and by automobiles. It refers NOT to a specific chemical but simply to air particle size.
Now cigarettes burn at a much lower temperature than industrial incineration and produce a much higher level of FPM 2.5. So Antismokers like to measure FPM 2.5 in bars, call it "air pollution" and compare it to the EPA measure.
This is bad science for two reasons. (1) EPA standards are set for 24 hour continuous outdoor baseline exposure. 24 hour standards are very different than 8 hour or 1 hour or transient peak standards for very good medical reasons. Antismokers ignore this important fact. and (2) Remember what FPM 2.5 *means* : it's simply particle size. The particles produced by the quiet burning of a few leaves are VERY different chemically than those pouring out of incinerators and tailpipes - but Antismokers ignore that and pretend the two are identical. That'd be like me taking a teaspoon of sugar crystals and a teaspoon of arsenic crystals and declaring they must be equally deadly. Obvious nonsense, but they get away with it because the public and the media are scientifically illiterate.
To see a true OSHA type estimation of what you'd be exposed to in a small, poorly ventilated bar with impossible numbers of smokers jammed into it, see the table at the bottom of the ETS Exposure section of www.Antibrains.com and if you have any questions or criticisms please share them here. I stand behind what I write.
Methusla you also said " this ban smoking crusade is nothing more nothing less than a " POWER and CONTROL " issue " Methusla, you're partly right but there's more to it. I spent the first 50 pages of Brains looking at the motivations of Antismokers and "The Controllers" was just one of nine categories. If you'd like to see a well done superbrief condensation put together by a fan of Brains, visit:
http://www.stahlheart.com/wispofsmoke...
It's also a good page for Antismokers to visit if they hope to recover from ASDS (AntiSmoking Dysfunction Syndrome)
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
March 14, 2009 at 2:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Mr. McFadden: I checked out your website and at least some of the other links you provided. Interesting although I can't seem to find much in the way of citations for work that supports your ideas. Can you direct me to the citations page?
March 14, 2009 at 3:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
P.S. The summary page was also informative. Thank you for the link.
March 14, 2009 at 3:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Irish;
My study was hypothetical and based on personal opinions and feelings. Much like you and the other pro-ban people who spout off that 2nd hand smoke in bars is un-safe or toxic when NO study has been done to prove it. While I'll apologize for stooping to the level of some of the posters on here , I stand by my offer to 1sgt to have the air tested in my bar and if the levels are above PEL levels established by OSHA I will go non-amoking immediately and pay for the test. If they don't exceed PEL levels Jonathan pays for the test.
Steve
March 14, 2009 at 6:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
waaayyy past time to move to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
March 14, 2009 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )