Group’s promise
Linda Corbin, Secretary, Emporia Open for Business
Monday, March 16, 2009
A FUNDRAISING LETTER sent to some Emporia residents insinuates Emporia Open for Business is funded by outside sources.
Here is just one of the misleading quotes in the letter: “Those opposing smoking regulations are often funded by tobacco companies and they can mount a serious campaign.”
Here is our promise to the voters of Emporia:
No. 1. We have not and will not accept any money or services from any tobacco companies or its lobbyists.
No. 2. We have not and will not accept any donations of money or services from anyone who does not own property in or does not reside in Lyon County.
No. 3. We have not and will not accept any tax-exempt or tax dollars or use any advertising paid for by tax-exempt or tax-free entities to further our cause in this fight for all of our rights.
No. 4. We are willing to provide The Emporia Gazette with a copy of all required reports on donations and expenditures we incur in this political fight three (3) days before the election takes place IF the Committee for a Healthier Emporia does the same. Will the Committee for a Healthier Emporia follow these same commitments? I think not; there are ads flooding the radio stations owned by Mr. Sauder using grant money from tax-exempt organizations funded by guess who, big pharmacy companies who sell Nicorette, Chantix and Nicoderm
No. 5. This has never been a health issue; it’s a RIGHTS ISSUE!
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Your reference to the pro-ban militia being "misleading" was far too kind. CAE and their brainwashed puppets have been using false information, scare tactics, bullying, gross deception, intimidation, and downright collusion to force home their selfish personal agenda. They are also utilizing massive amounts of government and special interest funds to over-react to a problem that never existed.
The excessively restrictive Emporia anti-smoking ban effort has shown signs from the beginning of being a well-orchestrated con job by a socio-economic privileged few who feel compelled to force their agenda and wishes on the socially inferior masses by any means necessary. Morality, equality, integrity, and reaity mean nothing to these elitist do-gooders and only serve as deterrents to achieving their goal. That goal is to force their views and values upon you and me with no regard for who, or how many, get hurt in the process.
Don't be fooled. This issue is not about health, as CAE and the smoker exterminators want you to believe. This is about rights, freedoms, tolerance, and government intervention.
Preserve individual rights. Keep Emporia a city for the hard-working masses; not controlled by a few pompous a$$es.
Vote "NO" on April 7th.
March 16, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
"Keep Emporia a city for the hard-working masses; not controlled by a few pompous a$$es."
It might be a teensy bit crass, but I think that is a WONDERFUL campaign slogan!!!! Thank you for the letter, Linda, and Bjnemp, great comment!
March 16, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Great letter Linda. I wish we could see how this whole can o'worms would shake out on a level playing field.
And when Goliath is defeated and the ground around Emporia finishes trembling from the fall. Do you think CAE and whatever the coalition is called will leave well enough alone????
March 16, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
I like the tax statement. I wouldn't want you to use tax money to fund a campaign that simply seeks to put money in the pockets of a few bar owners. However, I have no problem at all with tax money helping to fund a campaign that seeks to improve the health and well-being of Emporia residents.
Exactly what big surprise is going to be revealed when we get to see the finance reports? I sincerely doubt that any surprise will be unveiled.
March 16, 2009 at 3:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Oh, and you are right about one thing: This is a rights issue. But much more than that, it is a health issue.
March 16, 2009 at 3:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tell (anonymous) says...
Its amazing that we live in a world that a fat over- weight person can tell someone that smoking is unhealthy.
March 16, 2009 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gold66801 (anonymous) says...
When are you smokers ever going to get the message?????
March 16, 2009 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
They aren't, Gold. Their minds are too clouded by their addiction and their worries over fat people.
March 16, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Tell: Say your are sitting at a bar. The fat guy to your left is drinking a beer. The skinny guy to your right is drinking a beer and smoking a cigarette. Who has the most effect on YOUR health: Fats or Smokey?
March 16, 2009 at 3:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Who: If you were talking about the Patriot Act, I would agree with you a thousand percent. However, we are talking about a health issue on the local level. No one is losing the right to smoke. Everyone is gaining a chance at being healthier.
March 16, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tell (anonymous) says...
I don't smoke but I'm smart enough that if I am at a place where their is to much smoke I leave if I want to thats my choice. Do we need laws telling us not to eat a gallon of ice cream when we go to Braums? Are there laws that say we can't eat 10 cheese burgers at a local fast food restaurant because its unhealthy? We all know thats not healthy but we have a choice.Maybe there are people to dumb that they need someone telling them what to do they should probably stay home anyway.
March 16, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Tell: I could eat 10 gallons of ice cream and 10 cheeseburgers, and it won't effect your health one bit. However, if I light up in your face, it will.
March 16, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
djdiablo (anonymous) says...
Linda wrote a great letter with valid points, now, let’s set back and watch the other side try and tear it apart.
I know for a fact that the rumor was spread, maliciously and deliberately, that "Emporia: Open for Business!" had big “tobacco” money behind them when I know for a fact that members have been paying their expenses out of pocket. Laughable, of course, particularly now when you look at the Clean Airheads’ media blitz going on to ban smoking.
Smoking is legal. The best ban in the world is a sign on the front door saying “no smoking.”
License smoking establishments just like we already license drinking establishments. Sit back, enjoy the revenue pouring in, and laugh at those poor “fools” who want the freedom to choose what they do.
The way this was initially handled, trying to sneak the ban through WITHOUT discussion, sticks in my craw and will always be indicative of a group that has a deeper, and dare I say, a more sinister agenda in mind down the road.
March 16, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mrvvho (anonymous) says...
Good point, sgt. I see now how the actions of smokers can affect people other than themselves. Perhaps the ban is for the best. I will reconsider my vote. Thank you.
March 16, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
gold66801: Oh, we get the message. A few self-perceived socially and morally superior malcontents in our midst have sent a message that smokers are dirty, smelly, uneducated, second-class citizens whom you feel should not be allowed to indulge in a legal activity anywhere in a city you may also be in at the time. We also got the message that it matters not whether or not the business owner chooses to allow smoking in his private business even if you have never been there or will never be there, you don't want smoking allowed because that is YOUR choice.
And therein lies the problem with your message: Choice. You want it.. but you want no one else to have it.
The smoking ban isn't about health, and you know it. I doubt you have ever been in one of the bars or private clubs requesting the right to practice freedom of choice.
Smokers get the message; they just feel that freedom of choice, personal rights, and American values are more important than your opinion or the selfish agenda of CAE, crackinsack, or ol' sarge.
I really doubt 1sgt was ever a sargeant in anything but the Salvation Army. If he was, he wouldn't be opposing rights and freedoms that hundreds of thousands of his brothers fought and died for.
The smoking ban isn't about health. I haven't yet seen a single SHS-related body carried out of an Emporia bar, restaurant, or private club. I think we are all pretty safe with the existing ban already in effect.
The proposed ban is about rights and freedoms. Vote for the right to make your own choices. Live and let live.
Vote "NO" on April 7.
March 16, 2009 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
two v's a w do not make.
mrvvho
mrwho
I wonder which is the imposter.
1stsgt-- I bet if you were a cow, you'd pay to be slaughtered is someone smarter than you said that the best way to live was as meat.
March 16, 2009 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
1sgt;
If no surprises are going to revealed, why did the fundraising letter also state: the donors contribution would remain anonymous. I want to know who is funding the effort to take away my rights!
March 16, 2009 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tell (anonymous) says...
1 sgt I understand the point your trying to make my point is that the do gooders are saying this is a health issue mean while they have a choice to be as unhealthy as they want and are. If I was sitting at a bar and someone was blowing smoke my way I would simply get up and go to another place. Unless you are a picture of perfect health do not preach to me about what is healthy.
March 16, 2009 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
mrwho:
Tell me you're being sarcastic!! Please!!!! Just because 1sgt says the smoke will harm you, doesn't mean it will. Scientific proof of this is lacking. Also, if harmful, it could only harm you if you sat there and willingly inhaled it, puff after puff. I am not a smoker because I could never stand the stuff, but I have had no problems not being affected by smokers' smoke. I have not avoided it because I think it will kill me. I have avoided it when I have chosen to just because I can. I have not missed out on anything I wanted to do, but that is in part because there have been times I ignored the smoke so I could be where I wanted. I would be annoyed at this if I believed that my health was compromised, but the evidence of that is lacking. Don't let their propaganda seep in to your way of thinking. It is toxic and harmful to the foundation of our country.
March 16, 2009 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
mrwho 1st logged in Feb 11, 2009
Dumb a__ imposter mrvvho logged in Feb 12, 2009
Another trick of the antis
March 16, 2009 at 4:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
C'Mon, Oh. Even I know sarcasm, or a "false" username, when I read it!!
March 16, 2009 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Oh, good catch, OutsiderJ. I missed that one. Slimy, sneaky and evil---just like the ban endorsers...........................
March 16, 2009 at 4:09 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 4:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
My bad, 1sgt. Some of us have to multi-task other things as we read and respond here and may miss an underhanded trick here and there--I usually catch them, but this time I missed.
March 16, 2009 at 4:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
For what it is worth, I don't necessarily agree with CAE's tactets, but I do agree with their goal -- a healthier Emporia.
I've seen a few posts from Methusla, McFadden, etc., that dispute the notion that SHS is a health risk. However, the evidence is overwhelming that the health risk is great.
Outsider: Your going to have to point out which of your comments is a superior argument. As a cow, all I see is a bunch of bull disguised as nonsense coming from you. :)
March 16, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Oh, your not the first, and you won't be the last, to fall prey to some of the idiocy that spews from BOTH sides of this debut. For what it is worth, someone owes mrwho and apology.
March 16, 2009 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
1st sgt. wrote, "Outsider: Your going to have to point out which of your comments is a superior argument. As a cow, all I see is a bunch of bull disguised as nonsense coming from you. :)"
Now that is a fine example of spirited debate without getting too nasty....Out of all of those I don't agree with, for what it is worth, you are my favorite.
March 16, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Thanks...It's all about the fun.
March 16, 2009 at 4:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
'I must be on today, no one wants to refute any of my superior arguments."
OutsiderJ: I'm not sure your comments are superior, but they are certainly factual, reasonable, and truthful. The smoking ban supporters don't relate well to facts, reason, and truth so they don't know how to respond.
March 16, 2009 at 5:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
runt (anonymous) says...
I have a question that maybe someone could answer. What if the ban passes and I've gone to the bar and had a few drinks. I decide to go outside my 10ft to smoke a cigarette. What is to stop the police department from giving me a ticket for public intoxication?
March 16, 2009 at 6:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Well, runt, I do believe you are thinking this through more than the CAE believes you are capable of. If your scenario happens to enough people, don't you think that more people will give up cigarettes? This is called coercion, but many pro-ban people would tell you that then you would be free to exercise your freedom of choice to choose not to smoke anymore. It's interesting how that argument is good for them to use then, but not for us to use now. Since the goal is to get rid of smoking so there aren't any "dirty, nasty smokers," they really don't see a problem with the scenario you mentioned and the corner it pushes you into.
Sideline item: Fire department will be responding to all calls regarding this ban--not police. Officers and a firefighter I know have made this very clear to me.
March 16, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
runt (anonymous) says...
I hope while they are busy taking away my cigarettes and fining me, someones house doesn't catch on fire! It would be very unfortunate if they had to wait as their house burned down.
March 16, 2009 at 6:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Since they seem to believe that all bad things are caused by smokers, they probably think there won't be any fires to respond to once the smokers are eradicated. I hope they have a job in mind for my firefighter friend once they won't need to pay for that position anymore....................probably not, though.
March 16, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Runt: Are you saying our great fire department is not capable of multi-tasking? Do you really think that they will say, "Sorry but we can't respond to your house fire. We are dealing with a smoker who knowlingly and willingly has broken the law."
For that matter, do you plan on sleeping it off in the bar? If you are so drunk that you can't risk going out for a cigarette, then you are too drunk to make it home safely.
Perhaps you need to rethink your drinking.
March 16, 2009 at 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
mrwho: If I read you correctly, your saying we need to ban everything. Afterall, what doesn't cause cancer these days :)
However, since we have to start somewhere, let's start with SHS in public places.
After that, we can talk about mrwho's need to ban trees, flowers and other naturally occurring things.
March 16, 2009 at 6:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
And, a don't forget about Meth's need to ban fireplaces, and Corbin's need (I believe) to ban cars. Of course, that's gonna make it hard to get to the bar, but if he is willing to sacrifice his livelyhood, then maybe we should give it a chance.
March 16, 2009 at 6:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
1sgt:
What if he was having his smoke while waiting for that taxi he had them call--just like he always has, except now he has to be out in publicly owned spaces because he can't do it within the walls of a privately owned business that is open to the public?
Is it just me, or does this ban actually push smokers into truly public spaces more? I don't think you were on here back when I posed this before, 1sgt, but how do you propose I deal with this:
I do not smoke and don't hang out in smoky environments much. I enjoy walking immensely, and Commercial Street is a favorite route because of the wide sidewalks, the stuff to look at and the stroller compatibility. If this ban is enacted, I will have to walk myself and my kids through smoke clouds during a time that I REALLY want fresh air in my lungs and I don't really want my kids observing or hearing groups of drunk, smoking people. You see, right now, they rarely see anyone smoke. This ban will make smokers more visible to them. This ban really does undermine current public property smoking laws and media regulations that are meant to minimize visual exposure for kids. What do you think?
March 16, 2009 at 6:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
runt (anonymous) says...
Obviously 1sgt. you have not been to a bar in awhile!!! You only need to be over the legal limit to get a ticket for being drunk in public. I do know a few people who could drink a cas of beer and still function at a higher mental status then some people. I am sure they are probably over the legal limit. Also I am not saying that are fire department is not good! I just feel that they have more important things to think about than being big brother and saying shame on you for smoking less than 10ft from the building, which by the way for most bars it will be in the street. Try not to hit me while I stand in the street and inhale my nasty cancer stick!!!
March 16, 2009 at 6:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
How about this...drink responsibly and you don't have to worry about getting a ticket.
Smoke responsibly and you won't have to worry about a ban.
March 16, 2009 at 10:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Oh: Maybe I am wrong, but are you suggesting that the ban does not go far enough. Do you want smoking banned in all public places, indoor and out. What's next, a ban in private homes.
For people who argue that this issue is ony about rights, you sure suggest a lot of things be banned.
March 16, 2009 at 10:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Well, Cheech Marin -- maybe, but Tommy Chong always seemed a little too fried to have much of anything.
March 16, 2009 at 10:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
1sgt, you said, "Oh: Maybe I am wrong, but are you suggesting that the ban does not go far enough. Do you want smoking banned in all public places, indoor and out. What's next, a ban in private homes.
For people who argue that this issue is ony about rights, you sure suggest a lot of things be banned."
Yes, you are correct--you are wrong. I am advocating NOT to add to the current laws and regulations. I do NOT want this to go into further bans on private property, but I know it will go there--it's called foresight. The pro-ban people will act all surprised about the fallout of kids getting more exposure to the visual of people smoking everywhere and decide another one is warranted. I stated, "This ban really does undermine current public property smoking laws and media regulations that are meant to minimize visual exposure for kids." That means it is undoing what's done which is a bad thing. I'm advocating that we DON'T undermine the current protection of the children. Leave things alone by voting NO. Voting yes will only make things worse--change doesn't always equal forward motion.
March 16, 2009 at 11:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
right on O4,,,,,thankyou from all that have fought and died for our rights to be free and think
March 16, 2009 at 11:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
I wonder if burning books constitutes SHS or just another nazi concept
March 17, 2009 at 12:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
rights O moronic temple of doom and gloom
March 17, 2009 at 12:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I would like to ask 1sgt. why he is so against the Patriot Act?
But he/she is for a smoking BAN. Please explain to us?
Steve
March 17, 2009 at 9:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
The is a big difference in those signs being planted around town.
The yellow signs in peoples (some non-smoking), yards are about protecting our private property rights as given to us by the founding fathers of this great nation.
The green signs in yards are indicating those people have no concern for those rights, Or your rights to make your own informed decision. something to think about when you see green in your neighbors yard.
Vote NO
and choose where you Go!
Free in Emporia
Steve
March 17, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I personally don't care there motives for fighting this ban because I fear the ban proponents TRUE motives more than someone making money in a legal way, with a legal product, in a place that is easily avoidable by anyone and everyone how chooses to do so.
March 17, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Corbin: I object to the Patriot Act because it reaches far too far into the private lives of citizens. The SHS ban impacts only public accessible places and, unlike the Patriot Act, actually does some good for the citizens of this community.
Now, how come I don't hear you screaming against the Patriot Act, if you are so concerned about rights.
March 17, 2009 at 10:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
MrWho: Your logic is leaking!!
March 17, 2009 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
1sgt, While I didn't rail about the patriot act on here, I did send letters and e-mails to washington D.C. More has been done to weaken the constitution in the last 8 years than in all the time of our nations founding. And it was done under the guise of guess what? PUBLIC SAFETY & NATIONAL SECURITY. And if you voiced your opinion about it you were labled a sympathizer of terrorists or un-patriotic. Much like today by voicing our concerns over this government intrusion into our lives we are labled greedy and my favorite pro-shs.
Steve
March 17, 2009 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
any comments 1sgt?
March 17, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Comments? Sure! I can see how one would confuse National Security and second-hand smoke.
I can see how one would confuse the list of books one checks out at the library with the need for Public Safety.
What I don't see is how anyone can confuse a major health issue like second-hand smoke with the "right" to light up in a bar.
March 18, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I personally don't believe that shs is a "major health issue". I do believe it is unhealthy but with the current pre-ban laws it is easily avoided by adults who choose to. It is also easy for parents like myself to keep their kids away from.
Vote No because this is obviously not a health issue.
March 18, 2009 at 10:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
moving to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
March 18, 2009 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )