A matter of choice
Delwin Burton, Emporia
Monday, March 16, 2009
PRIVATE BUSINESS owners should be able to decide what is in their best interests. The private business owner has, and should continue to have, the right to permit or deny smoking on their property. That is their choice.
When I am on the property of others, I respect the specific rights that the property owner has decided upon. Being a smoker or non-smoker makes no difference. It is their property and they have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do. If I don’t like it, I will leave and do business elsewhere. That is my choice.
I would assume that most individuals can quickly sense upon entering a business whether or not people are smoking. If people are smoking, and you don’t want to breathe their second-hand smoke, you can leave. That is your choice.
Employees may make the same decision. There are plenty of smoke-free places for people to work if they don’t want to be around smoke. That is their choice.
Private business owners make decisions every day. It should be as they see fit to meet the needs of their customers, or the customers they want to attract. That is their choice.
This right should not be something that is mandated by the government or any special interest group. That should be everyone’s choice!
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Well said, Mr. Burton. CAE and the anti-smoker, anti-rights No-No nannys have spent a fortune trying to force their agenda on Emporians by deceiving the public into thinking this issue about saving lives and the world. It is not.
This ridiculously restrictive smoking ban is all about individual rights, freedom, the right to choose, and tolerance; or, in the case of the CAE tobacco Gestapo, lack thereof.
Emporia already has a smoking ban and has had for decades. Smoking is already banned in government and public buildings. This issue is about the rights of small business owners, particularly bars and taverns, and private clubs like the VFW and Eagles, to decide whether or not to allow smoking on their premises. If this ban passes, smokers within Emporia city limits will be allowed to smoke in just three locations: Their cars, their homes, or standing on the yellow line down the middle of the street. A paid member of a private club won't even be allowed to smoke within their own club building!
Save the laws and law enforcement for criminals. Vote for freedom, choice, and no more "big brother" involvement in our daily and private lives.
Vote "NO" on April 7.
March 16, 2009 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Crack--
you said, "Even if it harms their customers and employees? Can I start a business downtown that pumps poisonous gas into the air? Can I start a business that has the front door rigged to electrocute anyone who comes inside?"
Unbelievable. this is wrong on so many levels.
1. That is an example of first hand actions harming someone, not second hand.
2. That is an example of assault and attempted murder, not an example of an alleged harm from the second hand use of a legal product.
3. If there was a market for the services you hypothetical businesses provided (and poisoning and electrocuting people was legal like smoking), I'm sure you would be welcome to open such a business and enjoy the right to decide how to serve your customers i.e. what kind of gas, how much voltage, amperage (not sure that is a word), and wattage to give 'em and at what price they would pay for your services.
4. This example would in know way effect the health of your employees, which is a staple argument for pro ban rhetoric.
5. Again, like a lot of your posts you chose to ignore the reasonable argument made by Delwin, namely that people are choosing to go in despite the alleged risk. Just like they would in your hypothetical.
While I don't agree, I usually try to respect your point of view, but this comment takes the cake. How far are you willing to go to have your preferences forced on everybody??? I am asking you this in hopes that you will ask this question of yourself.
March 16, 2009 at 3:39 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 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Good Job Delwin.
I appreciate you thoughts, (AS you are a non-smoker).
Even more I appreciate you have the courage to sign your name telling people in a letter what you believe.
Steve
March 16, 2009 at 4:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Drunk driver's again, really? Is that the best you can do?
on #1. You are wrong again. SHS is not considered "first hand actions" because first, the name is Second Hand Smoke. The point of smoking is recreational enjoyment of a legal substance/drug much like having a beer or a cup of coffee or drinking like 4 bottles of Robitussin (kidding of course on the Robitussin). Its a mechanism of relaxation in the psychological realm (although nicotine is a stimulant oddly enough).
A smoker is putting harmful stuff into his/her body and putting out a relatively inert (when compared to its first hand counterpart) substance into the air. there is a clear difference between first and second hand smoke, namely my lungs.
But there you go distracting me again with your silly health talk. Lets talk about rights. Surely you choose to do things that aren't good for you or others at the same time. I'll reach here for something that probably doesn't apply, that way you will be sure to fully aprreciate the argument I am making. Lets say you don't where your seatbelt despite "evidence" that it may save your life, lets say you crash your car, the first hand effect of which is your untimely demise. As your body is ejected from the car and flies in a rag doll fashion through the air, it strikes and kills someone. Your second hand driving has caused something in the air (namely you) to harm someone else. Does that mean we should ban driving because of what might happen, or try to do a better job with existing laws.
Should we ban smoking in privately owned public places or just do a better job of excersing our freedom and choice and working within the existing law?
March 16, 2009 at 4:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
I know my above post doesn't make a lot of sense. A little maybe but not alot.
Now crackinsack, you know what it is like reading your posts sometimes. I can almost see what you are attempting to put forth in your argument, but it is usually ruined by examples that either don't make any sense or are not even close to "apples to apples" comparisons.
March 16, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
"Remember, we aren't banning the first-hand use of tobacco; we are banning it in areas where the second-hand affects can be harmful."
Which just happens to be anywhere anyone might be at any time.
When will you anti-smoker, anti-tobacco, anti-choice radicals finally get it? This issue isn't about health. It's about rights.
Vote "NO" on April 7.
March 16, 2009 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Ms. Crackinsack wrote:
"You said: "Smoking is already banned in government and public buildings." Which would be great if non-smokers could work, eat, drink, shop, etc exclusively in government buildings. I think they usually close around 5:00 PM and don't generally serve food and beverage, however... Why is it that smokers think ALL non-smokers are government workers who live in well-supplied underground bunkers?"
Gee, crack; I must have missed something. Please enlighten me as to where in Emporia anyone is forced to "work, eat, drink, shop" or anything else in a building full of cigarette smoke? I don't know of a single one. Please give me that list. Any retail store I have shopped in, restaurant I have eaten in, or office building I have entered doesn't allow smoking. We must go to different places. Please give me a list of all those retail businesses and office buildings that force their customers to inhale cigarette smoke. I might want to shop there.
Again, your arguments make no sense, attempt to mislead, and are void of reason or fact. Emporia has had a very well-defined and effective smoking ban for many years. Your contention, like all your arguments, is bogus.
See through the smoke screen of the CAE: vote NO on April 7.
March 16, 2009 at 5:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
crackinsack posted, "Even if it harms their customers and employees?"
Once again, you make the claim that someone is being harmed. Unless you can show that someone is being harmed, your statement is a lie.
Why do so many of the ban supporters on this 'forum' have such a problem with honesty?
crackinsack also posted, Can I start a business downtown that pumps poisonous gas into the air? Can I start a business that has the front door rigged to electrocute anyone who comes inside? "
As you are so fond of saying, not the same thing at all. If those activities were legal, and the business owner chose to do so, you probably could.
However, unlike smoking, pumping poisonous gas into the air is not legal. Unlike smoking, electrocuting people is also illegal.
crackinsack finishes up with, "This is what we are doing with our businesses. They are harming the customers and employees and it can't be allowed to continue."
Again, this is a lie. Unless of course you can prove that someone is actually being harmed.
" If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth. "
Paul Joseph Goebbles, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany
Stop the lies. Vote NO on April 7.
March 16, 2009 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Everyone except crack, please vote NO! (we can let the CAE have that one pity vote ; )
March 16, 2009 at 6:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cdetx5 (anonymous) says...
It is too bad that the focus is on privately owned businesses being smoke free. Adults can choose to go to such businesses, or not. Maybe all this advertising and money should be focused on private homes where adults smoke and children live. I'm betting that those children don't have a choice and that their health is much more at risk than it would be by spending an hour in a smoke filled restaurant eating.
March 16, 2009 at 6:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
cdext5:
If you mean educational advertising to convince people not to smoke anywhere around children, I agree 100%. If, however, you mean to ban smoking in private homes, I have to disagree. Society is responding to the education over the past 20 years and smoking has been reduced drastically. Once again, though, the science doesn't come anywhere near backing the need for a law--not even for children in their home environments. Seat belt and child-restraints/seats were easily proven necessary and if the science were as strong on this, I would support it. It is not, however, sufficient for a new ban of any kind.
March 16, 2009 at 7 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Have you noticed how the ban smoking advocates come up with some of the most ridiculous stuff as a comparison to smoking and SHS. Poisonous Gas, Electrocutions, PAALEASE ! Are these comparisons a sign of desperation. COOOUUULLLLDDD be !
VOTE NO
March 16, 2009 at 8:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Meth: How about banning cars or banning trees or banning fireplaces? Isn't that ridiculous, too?
March 16, 2009 at 10:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Just curious: Does anyone else see the difference between legal and regulated?
March 16, 2009 at 10:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Meth: Some of the stuff you have put forth is totally nonsense so I'd be careful who you call desperate.
Now, do you want to know my ethnicity so you can attack me racially and stereotypically?
March 16, 2009 at 10:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Ahhhh MrWho...a well-played argument that I had not considered. Sadly, I am too old to start smoking. Can I send my kids to Josie's?
March 16, 2009 at 10:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
Cheap smokes are now over $40 a carton, I think the economics will haunt the government longer than my health, lol
March 16, 2009 at 10:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
I guess I will quit smokin since the govenment doesnt need my tobacco tax anymore, Obama will pick up the tab for my lung cancer treatment,,,lol
March 16, 2009 at 11:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
BTW, well written Delwin, thanks
March 16, 2009 at 11:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
this is a totally unenforcible sanction, just another waste of taxpayer dollars
March 16, 2009 at 11:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )