djdiablo (anonymous) says...

Crack, please please please go far away, you are such a drag. I’ve known Sandy for years and yes, she is a manager, not an owner. She doesn’t work on commission, sales don't effect her salary, and if it did, what business is it of yours? Are you saying she’d like to keep her job? Sure, I'll bet she does. So would I. How about you, high and mighty?

Although adding customers doesn't add to her "greed," as you so stupidly put it, but NOT having customers will certainly have bearing on her income.

Do you even understand business...do you have a job and can you do even simple math or does someone sew your lunch money up in the lining of your jacket so that you can get by?

Let us know where you work, we’ll try to round up a posse of do-gooders and see if we can’t make some changes there in an area where you have no control or input. I'm sure you’d be happy with that. What an unmitigated dweeb you are.

March 13, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

deluvly1 (anonymous) says...

Crack, your stupidity is stunning. Your line “greed tends to cause some people to ignore what's best for their customers and employees in the pursuit of the all mighty dollar,” is, hands down, the most asinine statement I’ve read to date. (Are you secretly advising the financial genius of the Obama administration? If so, that would explain so much…)

Yeah, right, doofus, IGNORING what's best for customers makes you rich, all right. That’s why all store owners only sell things people don’t want and things that they hate. It’s because “greed” makes them ignore what’s best for their customers…I had to laugh out loud.

You foolishness is obviously infinite. Keep writing, you make everyone else seem so intelligent.

March 13, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Keep it up, Crackinsack. Continue the fight. You are the most powerful weapon in the anti-ban arsenal. Your ignorant and senseless comments prove beyond a doubt that proponents of the smoking ban use false information, scare tactics, personal attacks, and intimidation to force their intolerant views and values on others. With each entry you post, you confirm the smoking ban argument has nothing to do with health but is instead all about intolerance, hate, selfishness, and erosion of personal rights and freedoms.

You are a bitter, deluded, intolerant woman, Crack. You scream daily about your "rights" and your ability to "choose" yet you advocate elliminating the rights and ability of others to choose. We had no problem with smoking or smokers in Emporia until you, nanny Walters, and the CAE tobacco troopers decided some citizens were not living up to your lofty self-serving personal standards.

We have had a strong and effective smoking ban in Emporia for many years. It works and it serves all fairly and equally. Now a few radical do-gooders among us wish to divide our community, create class and social warfare, and turn honest, decent, law-abiding citizens into criminals if they light up and partake of a legal product or if they allow someone to do so in their business.

We must stop the privileged few from dictating policy and law for all. If we allow these self-perceived superiors to bully this law into effect then we deserve the lunacy and misery that will come with it.

Vote for individual rights, freedom of choice, and the return of good old common sense.

Prove that the people, not the powerful and privileged, still run our nation.

Vote "NO" on April 7th.

March 13, 2009 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Thanks Sandy!
Short, sweet and to the point.
I Know Sandy also.
She is not greedy or she wouldn't be working for Gary, sorry Gary had to get a shot in there. She cares about her fellow employees and customers, and all her friends.
Heck some of us on the EOB committee call her our "TREASURE"
Steve Corbin
Town Royal

March 13, 2009 at 4:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

DON'T FORGET THE PARADE SAT. @1:00

March 13, 2009 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

I like to light a few smoke bombs while eating/drinking. Can I do this at Bruff's? What about you, Steve? Can I come to your bar and light some smoke bombs while I drink? What about stink bombs? EOB doesn't care about rights or consumer choices. Otherwise, they'd let me light smoke bombs in their businesses. I have no logical reason for doing it, but that's what I like to do so they should let me, right?
'enry

March 13, 2009 at 4:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

HenryVIII,

You can do what ever you wan't to . Then you'll get a very quick lesson in private property rights. Not to mention I think all types of fireworks are already banned in the city. That kind of sucks, not being able to celebrate the 4th as we used to because of a few whining nanny's wanted to protect us.
Make your choice early though I want to be the one to sign the tresspass ticket.
Steve

March 13, 2009 at 5:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

enry.
Does the VIII on the end of your username indicate the highst grade level you attained? Sound like it.

March 13, 2009 at 5:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Crack and others: Isn't it amazing how desperations breeds attacks on one's intelligence? Just because they happen to disagree with you, or don't like your opinion, they attack you personally. Be glad your heritage is not posted. Some will attack that, too. As far as I am concern, attacking my opinion is one thing, but attacking me personally just shows their desperation.

Just remember, these are the same folks who can't come to term with the statements of RESPECTED agency who have shown time and again that second hand smoke can lead to cancer.

March 13, 2009 at 7:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

YY4U: Well put, except the vote no part.

March 13, 2009 at 7:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

irishemporia (anonymous) says...

Mr. Who: Times change as does knowledge gained. The more we learn about the impact of SHS, the more we see the need for bans.

The only reason we need a ban is because smokers choose to ply their habit in public accessible places rather than in the privacy of their own homes where they can't harm others.

March 13, 2009 at 7:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sickofitall (anonymous) says...

Oh just shut up! I am tired of reading my local news and getting a face full of hating localites tasteless comments! If you were my children, who by the way have more manners than most of you put together I would make you all stand in a corner!

March 13, 2009 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

HenryVIII posted, "I like to light a few smoke bombs while eating/drinking. Can I do this at Bruff's? What about you, Steve? Can I come to your bar and light some smoke bombs while I drink? What about stink bombs? EOB doesn't care about rights or consumer choices. Otherwise, they'd let me light smoke bombs in their businesses. I have no logical reason for doing it, but that's what I like to do so they should let me, right?"

If smoke bombs and stink bombs were legal products and the business owner chose to allow that legal activity, then yes - you should be able to do it without the interference of the nanny squad.

Much like the current issue - cigarettes are a legal product and if the business owner chooses to allow a legal product to be used in his or her business, they yes - the should have that right.

It should not be up to some nanny squad to decide for a private business owner whether or not they may allow a legal product to be used in their business.

It's not a health issue. Stop the lies, vote NO in April.

March 13, 2009 at 8:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

irish
You might want to take a look at some of your own posts before you take the high road on the personal attacks thing. crack is the farthest from innocent in that and he is pro-ban. Both sides are guilty. sickofitall has a good point and I would suggest that they stay away from the forums if they don't like them, like I've told people to stay away from shs if they don't like it. Both are super easy.
peace out

March 13, 2009 at 8:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

irishemporia posted, "Crack and others: Isn't it amazing how desperations breeds attacks on one's intelligence? Just because they happen to disagree with you, or don't like your opinion, they attack you personally. Be glad your heritage is not posted. Some will attack that, too. As far as I am concern, attacking my opinion is one thing, but attacking me personally just shows their desperation."

You mean like crackinsack and some others threatening to urinate on people? Calling ban opponents terrorists? Threatening to pour things down people's throats? Calling people nazi lovers and Hitler worshipers?

Pot...meet kettle.

March 13, 2009 at 8:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kittenslvsu (anonymous) says...

My husband don't smoke and the second hand smoke bothers him something horrid how ever due to the intrusiveness of this law he will vote no as will I. We have a choice that if the smoke gets bad we can leave as can others or vist places that don't allow smoking. It is a legal drug for those over 18 and should be a choice. We also are business owners and we feel we can and do make accomidations for those who do and don't smoke . We have a small trucking company and ask drivers not to smoke in the office and try to keep drivers that smoke in the same trucks as others who smoke and ones who don't in truck that have not been smoked in. This tends to make our drivers and other employees happy. We each should have the right to chose. If you dont like the second hand smoke when out a bar or restaurant, maybe you should open a non smoking bar, or restaurant and leave the people choice. Smokers have rights as well. If we take this away are we next going to say you can have a drink with dinner or go to a bar and have a drink. Better yet is the next law going to be we cant drive your car because the emissions are harmful to us and will kill us as well that's second hand ?????????

We are voting No

Stephanie and Tom Wilson

March 13, 2009 at 8:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Yes, Mr.O, and calling others terrorists and racial slurs and questioning their intelligence.

March 13, 2009 at 8:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Kitten: Smokers have NO right, despite what Meth says, to spew toxic crap for others to breath.

March 13, 2009 at 8:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Flatlander (anonymous) says...

Looks like the state will ban smoking in public places.
I would agree that smoking should be ban in places where there is a mix of smokers and non smokers. Places like the bowling allie, a lot of people like to go there but a smoke filled
room is no fun. It isn't fair for those who don't smoke. I see
no reason to ban smoking in bars and est. that have smoking
customers in large numbers. We who don't smoke prob. would
not be in those kind of places. What ever happened to the times when smokers use to ask any and all non smokers if they mind if they lit one up? That was and still is the right approach, any where people are. The old native american's said: "Smoking was a way to get rid of the white people who
came in and took over their way of life, but it just took too long
to kill them off." They were and still are wise. No one ever said our melting pot would be easy. Living all together is hard enough, but for the most part when we think of others first and put ourselves last we end up with outsiders wanting be a part of (Emporia) us.

March 13, 2009 at 9:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

sickofitall,

Aren't we all!

But as long as I see any group or government trying to take away a "God Given right", as the framers of the constitution put it, I will not be quiet. This is Not a smoker verses non-smoker debate, you should be able to see the slow erosion of our rights under the constitution. If you can't, I fear America won't be America much longer, we will be North America.
Steve

March 13, 2009 at 9:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

And Irish;

You never answered my question about the surgeon general did you?

March 13, 2009 at 9:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Posted by Flatlander (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks like the state will ban smoking in public places.

I wouldn't bet on that just yet.......

March 14, 2009 at 12:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Who wrote: F.U.1sgt_retierd!

Mr. Who: So this is your intelligent response? Good luck.

March 14, 2009 at 3:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

1sgt
You are really not the one to take the high road with anyone. If you don't believe me just check out some of your first posts.

March 14, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

All of you who have decided to vote no, just keep posting here as I will and don't worry about irish, 1stsgt, crack and others whos only disire is to control every aspect of the lives of those who do not believe or live as the want. I believe that you have all seen that these people have and are the first to attack someone with insults, degrading remarks, nasty inuendos, etc. and yet when the person they attack, retaliates in kind or with stronger attacks they cry, bigot, racist, hypocrit and more insults and inuendos. These small people can " dish it out " but they " can't take it ". This is also their attitude with the smoking ban, " you smokers and everyone will do what we want and how dare you defy us, disagree with us or oppose us, we are smarter and superior to you or anyone !
So keep up the efforts to convince people that this smoking ban is not right and to vote no and don't worry about the people on this forum who have a penchant to attack you if you disagree with them, because as long as I post on here they will have me as their whipping boy and I have taken much worse, from much, much better than them !
VOTE NO !

March 14, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Oh, also as you can see. Even if you try to have a civil bebate or exchange with these people, they still continue to insult, degrade and throw inuendos at you. But don't worry about them it takes a big person to move on !

March 14, 2009 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Take a look at this following statement,
Kitten: Smokers have NO right, despite what Meth says, to spew toxic crap for others to breath.
Does this imply that this is a " RIGHTS" issue ! Does this particular statement mean that an outdoor smoking ban or a ban in our private residences and vehicles, etc. is next ?
I believe that this post and poster is perfectly clear on their intentions and that they and all smoking ban supporters believe that smokers and people who tolerate and allow smoking should have no rights and that is the whole purpose of this smoking ban.
Let me make it perfectly clear " AGAIN ", I used to be a smoker, but quit 25 years ago. However I believe that this smoking ban and the people who support this ban are not right and only want to control the smokers and the establishments that allow smoking, along with everyone else who don't believe as they do.
Here is something to think about. If our supreme law making body, the Federal Government had thought that smokers and businesses and business owners had no right to smoke or allow smoking in their businesses don't you think that they would have passed an amendment to the Constitution or Bill of Rights, specifically stating that fact, and passing a national smoking ban law. And yet they have not done so, why do you think that is ? Could it possibly be that it would be a violation of a persons, certain personal rights or civil liberties ?
And yes, it could be because of the money that the Tobacco Companies or other Companies are giving congressman to not pass a national smoking ban law ! But which ?
Hmmmmmm! Just something to think about !

March 14, 2009 at 10:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

deluvly1 (anonymous) says...

Wow, some of you seem to be dying to ban someone---anyone---from doing something---any thing, well here’s a place to start that would truly go a long way to protecting people.
How about doing something about the woman who just missed hitting my child and me in a crosswalk because she was eating with one hand and talking on her miserable cell phone with the other? If you want to talk about a debilitating habit, let’s start with the morons who can’t drive a block without their silly phones glued to the side of their head. Ever been forced to listen in on this drivel? Real important stuff, generally speaking. I would sure hate to see someone put a stop to this boorish behavior.

March 14, 2009 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

deluvly1
That's a good point! People that want this ban however can justify the "health hazards" that they enjoy so your good point will go in one ear and out the other with them. They will say that it doesn't affect anybody else so it's OK even though as you just pointed out it does. I have brought up several different things similar to your example and they refuse to see it as even being remotely similar. It was still a very good point but will unfortunately be lost on the ones who need to hear it the most.

March 14, 2009 at 2:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kittenslvsu (anonymous) says...

Again its a choice to smoke or not. The government has no business telling us when its ok or when its not and when and where we can if we choose. If we let them take this away what are they going to take away next our birthday. we are still voting NO .

March 14, 2009 at 6:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

deluvly1;
Do you suppose that woman that almost hit you and your child in the cross walk, while driving, talking on a cellphone and eating what may have been a " WENDYS " burger, could have been the head of the CAE or one of its members !

March 14, 2009 at 8:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

history_nerd (anonymous) says...

So, it's infringing on someone's right to say there's no smoking allowed, but it's not infringing on my rights to have to breathe second hand smoke?

Alrighty then.

March 14, 2009 at 9:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

You don't have to breathe it because with the current laws it is super easy to avoid.

Alrighty then.

March 14, 2009 at 10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Here is a queston for crack, 1sgt, Irish and other pro-ban advocates.
Name 1 person, any person, that I have forced into my business to breath 2nd hand smoke? Wouldn't this qualify for a kidnapping charge? Why haven't I been charged yet? And Irish don't give me the employee argument, they knew it was a smoking establishment when they interviewed.
Steve

March 15, 2009 at 8 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

history_nerd;

If you really are, (a history nerd), go back and check out smoking bans in the 1930's-1940's. See if the bans back then look and sound like today.

March 16, 2009 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

Steve,
Ok, maybe smoke bombs are already banned in town. I also like to light 4 dozen sticks of incense when I drink. So you are saying you would charge me for trespassing just because I want to share my incense smoke with everyone in the bar? …Seems a bit hypocritical considering you are allowing smokers to do just that. So, really, it's not about rights; it's about your selfish wants. Otherwise, you would allow all customers to do whatever silly, harmful thing they want to on your premise. For some reason, smoking is your only exception. Why is that? Your deceitful tactics have already backfired on you once. (lying about doing a study on air quality), so I suggest you come clean, Steve.
‘enry

March 16, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

I know Steve will speak for himself, but, 'enry, I never read where he told you you couldn't light incense in his bar. I'm guessing that if you did and he told you to get rid of them, it would be because you are irritating a good portion of his other customers and hurting his business. This is a right we have given him as a business owner. The smoke from cigarettes doesn't drive off many of his regular customers as most of them are the ones smoking--a choice the federal laws have allowed them. You are disregarding current laws to try to make this new one seem necessary, but IT"S NOT!!!
Vote NO!!
Michelle

March 16, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

Vote NO! I really liked the people I met last week at the Town Royal. What a fun bunch! I really admire people who are not afraid of the Wicked Ban Witches of the Health Department. I realize that the paper gets TONS of ad dollars from the antis of the Kansas Health Foundation and from Kansas Health Department grants, AND from Nicotine replacement pharma. Too bad all this money is reflected in the editorial policy of the paper.

March 16, 2009 at 11:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack; you stated the following.
MisterO,
You said: “threatening to urinate on people” and “Threatening to pour things down people’s throats”
These weren’t “threats”.
Please read the following from " WEBSTERS ".
1threat
1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
2 : one that threatens
3 : an indication of something impending

threat·en
1: to utter threats against
2 a: to give signs or warning of : portend b: to hang over dangerously : menace
3: to announce as intended or possible
4: to cause to feel insecure or anxious
intransitive verb
What would your exact perception of " threat " be !
Smokers and those who allow smoking in their bussinesses have never uttered or made threats against anyone or threatened anyone with their life style ! If you believe that the by product of smoking, SHS is or will do you harm, then it is you and only you and only you who is threatening yourself by insisting on exposing yourself to that environment or threat and you and only you are to blame for your poor choice !
All you have to do to eliminate the threat to you, is to choose to go to a business or environment that does not allow smoking, therefore eliminating the threat of SHS, that your paranoia causes you to fear so much ! But, alas, obviously a decision of that magnitude is far beyond you to make.
You are rignt the VOTE NO day will soon be upon us !

March 16, 2009 at 11:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

vankamp (anonymous) says...

There are bars in town I would like to go to and I would love to be able to go bowling, but because of a medical condition that does not allow me to be around SHS, I can't go. Many restaurants in town have seperate smoking sections but it still ends up drifting over to where I sit. I will be voting Yes.

March 16, 2009 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

Vankamp
There are only 2 restaurants in town I can think of with separate smoking sections. Chinese Buffet and Coaches. Then there are two which are smoke where you like Bruff's and S&S Cafe. All of the other restaurants in town to my knowlege are non-smoking.
I'm guessing your medical condition is respiratory in nature and you are probably restricted from physical exertion. If these things are true, you probably couldn't bowl anyway. If I am wrong, you should look into smoke free bowling hours, which I believe are offered. If they don't offer such hours, you should let capitalism decide. Do we really need to change the law to allow you to do the things you want. You see if this ban stays, I will be the one that would love to go bowling but can't because I smoke and wouldn't want everyone waiting on me to roll, while I smoke outside (not to mention having to change shoes). Your comment shows the transparency of the health argument. Ban supporters need to man/woman up and admit that they are on this crusade because they want their preferences to be catered to
As for the bar scene, I still don't see what the fuss is. There are 2 nonsmoking bars in Emporia. One, The Blind, is a beer joint, the other, The Noose, is a full service bar. Seem like you have more choices than you thought.

March 16, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Hummm, What about the alcoholic, who can't be around booze because it would affect their medical condition? allergic to peanuts? Ban all peanut products in Emporia.
If vankamp has medical problems that shs aggrivates, what about car exhaust, bar-b-que grills, or the smoke coming out of their favorite resturarants kitchen? Pasture burning, fireplaces, My God let's ban it all!
I am not making light of anyones illness or medical condition, I just don't understand why somone is so quick to give up their rights and business owners rights just so they can go bowling or eat a steak at a certain cafe.

March 16, 2009 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

vankamp:
I understand that having extenuating circumstances in your life can make for a lot of frustration as you learn to make decisions to accommodate an unwanted factor. I am sorry that you have to deal with that. That being said and sincerely meant, do you feel it is okay to force all business owners to cater to you, preventing them from being able to cater to others who are not like you? The existence of this debate is actually very healthy, as it is making business owners very aware of the market demands. If only we could have had it by way of the commissioners turning it over for us to debate and vote on in the first place. But I digress. The fact of the matter is that as things currently stand, you should be able to patronize 80% of the local restaurants and (now) two of the bars. I believe that more options will be opening up, just by virtue of this topic being publicized and placed in front of everyone. I do not believe we need a law to accomplish it. Let's face it---you have a huge number of options now ,compared to what you had (or would have had) just 10 or 15 years ago. People with debilitating conditions have to make more concessions than those without--it is an unfortunate fact, but it is not out of cruelty or disregard. It is because they do not constitute the majority, and business operates based on majority demands. It truly is, "just business," to borrow a phrase from a different context. It isn't that I am against change, as crack likes to infer. On the contrary, I am all for the change--I just want it to come "naturally" as it already is and not be forced, causing adverse side effects.

Everyone except crack VOTE NO (leave the CAE that one pity vote)
Michelle

March 16, 2009 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

HenryVIII,
You like to light incense when you drink? I thought only dope smokers used incense to mask the odor of their weed? Do you think pot should be legalized?
I just googled it & found out incense was used for all kinds of things. Guess these forums do serve a purpose.

I'll come clean enry, You come on in and have a beer, and light your incense,do it soon though, as it will be illegal to do it after the ban takes effect. If the majority of my customers don't mind , no problem. On the other hand, if this ban is passed your incense can't be burned in any building in Emporia, except your house, and that will be next. You know, the slippery slope.
Steve

March 16, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack; Obviously you don't believe your following comment is selfcentered or selfish !
("learn to do things without smoking"

I for one happen to believe this statement is the most selfish, selfcentered, contolling statement I have seen to date on these forums.
You have a lot of gall to tell someone, anyone to learn to modify their life style or learn a life style just to accomodate you and other ban smoking advocates ! Especially when you and the other ban smoking supporters have many more non-smoking, smoke free business you can frequent. (" Learn to decide to make the choice to go to these smoke free establishments and businesses." )
People, I still maintain that this smoking ban is not entirely a " HEALTH ", issue but rather a " Rights, Power and Control of Life Styles issue and cracks statement("learn to do things without smoking"
says so without any doubt !

VOTE NO ON APRIL 7th

March 16, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

Crackinsack--
I was unisg bowling as an example in relation to me. It is not smoking that keeps me from bowling, but rather my missing right hand. I tried to learn left, but I would rather not bowl than bowl a 36.

The argument remains the same. There may be medical conditions that limit someone's choice of where to spend there dinero, but vankamp's and my comments are really one in the same with the exception of the word not.

Vankamp does NOT like second hand smoke and wants smoking banned in public places.

I do not mind second hand smoke and do NOT want smoking banned in public places.

As you can see those two arguments are about preference. However, as a reasonable intelligent adult, I know that in life you rarely get your own way and almost never without compromise or change to your original thought/proposal (whatever the case may be). As many have said we already have an indoor smoking ordinance and the free market is handling the "problem" beautifully.

It is rather convenient that you completely ignore the most reasonable parts of people's argument? In my case it was smoke free bowling hours (crack now is your chance to break out your third hand smoke claims if you have any), if they exist bowl then (if it is not when you can make it, then it is a matter of how much you would love to bowl). If they don't lobby the management, let capitalism do the talking.

Just kidding about the hand....makes you think though. Maybe you shouldn't make so many assumptions about the addictions of others.

"Everyone knows how to live your life better than you" ~OutsiderJ 2009

March 16, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

I must be on today, no one wants to refute any of my superior arguments.

March 16, 2009 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Outsider;
just wait, ole cracky will be back soon after planting a few more vote yes signs in yards.

March 16, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

If anyone would like a preview of life if this ban (and the undoubted additional bans they have on the shelf) holds up, I would encourage you to watch a movie called Demolition Man.
Not for the acting or even the plot, but the subplot. Recreational sex without physical contact, 1 restaurant period, no swearing, no smoking, no drinking, no being impolite, no toilet paper for crying out loud (thank God I had the 3 seashells installed in my house last year).

Slippery slope at its finest and Wesely Snipes with blonde hair. Is that a world you want to live in?
Me neither.

March 16, 2009 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

ROFL, OutsiderJ,
I had to watch that about a month and a half ago because this ban made me think of it non-stop. Glad to know I'm not the only one.

March 16, 2009 at 4:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kittenslvsu (anonymous) says...

I give a pat on the back to Steve and others that Vote no. Its a power trip for the government. It has nothing to do with health issuses or they would make it illegal to smoke. If we continue to let them take our rights away we will be a dictatorship not a democracy

I WILL VOTE NO

March 16, 2009 at 5:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

I have been gone to a federally declared disater area (Greensburg) rebuilding homes and I got to admit this is a lot of reading to catch up on and I have only been gone a week.

Dont Tread On Me

Vote No April 7th

March 22, 2009 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )