Very real risk
Robert Grover, Emporia
Monday, March 16, 2009
THE PROPOSED ban on smoking in Emporia is foremost about public health. The dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke have been well-known and well-documented for many years. The generally accepted definition of “secondhand smoke” is a mixture of the smoke given off by cigarettes, pipes or cigars, and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.
Further proof came in June 2006, in a comprehensive report by the U.S. Surgeon General, which states that “smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death.” This Report was written by 22 national experts and reviewed by 30 scientists. Furthermore, the Surgeon General’s report states that secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke and there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Eliminating smoking indoors fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Other ways of limiting smoking spaces, as done here in Emporia, include separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air and ventilating buildings, but the Surgeon General’s reports makes it clear that such measures cannot eliminate exposing nonsmokers to cancer-causing chemicals.
For the health of all Emporians and visitors, we must ban smoking in public places, as so many other cities in Kansas, the United States, and other countries have. I ask voters to support the smoking ban for the benefit of all Emporians because smoking is a proven health hazard for all who smoke and for all who breathe the smoke. We all have the right to our health, and we all have the right to breathe clean air.
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
"For the health of all Emporians and visitors, we must ban smoking in public places, as so many other cities in Kansas, the United States, and other countries have."
Emporia, and Kansas, already has strict bans on smoking in public places and has for decades. I have heard no one, not even smokers, arguing that smoking should not be banned in public and government buildings, indoor stadiums, retail stores, schools, etc. I have heard to opposition to restaurants and bars choosing to forbid smoking in their businesses, either.
As most have been misled to believe, you apparently think this ban is about health issues or righting some gross injustice. It is not. This ban is about the rights of individual business owners, particularly bar and tavern owners and private clubs, to have the freedom to CHOOSE to allow or ban smoking on their premises. That is why there is such strong opposition to the ban.
Every public and government building in Emporia is already smoke free. So are 90% of the restaurants in town.
The smoking ban is not about health. It is all about freedom, the right to choose, tolerance, common sense, and keeping the dysfunctional government out of our daily personal lives.
If you value freedom, the right to make choices, and believe in what makes America great, you will vote "NO" on April 7.
March 16, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Bjnemp:
You have very passionate and well-written responses to this subject. I would very much like to see them as letters to the editor as well--please consider it. Thanks.
Michelle
"Keep Emporia a city for the hard-working masses; not controlled by a few pompous a$$es." (quote from Bjnemp--perfect, dollar signs and all)
March 16, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Crackinsack: There are more than a few people in town. I am seeing more and more Vote Yes signs in Emporia.
BJ may be right about one thing. There is a rights element to this issue as is there a health element. Quite frankly, the health of the citizens far away the rights of a few business owners.
March 16, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
crack and 1sgt:
How is it you two aren't dead or at least critically ill from all the "harm" that these private business owners have inflicted on you??????
March 16, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Robert, you wrote, '“smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death.”'
this is absolutely correct and has absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand. No one for or against this ban has ever said anything contrary to the above statement. You use the word risk and death and cause and smoke and you hope that no one will notice that you aren't talking about second hand smoke. As far as no risk free level of second hand smoke, The jury is still out on that one. I have said once and will again that even IF this was a legitimate health issue the data varies far too much to make a statement like that as fact. Even IF this was a legitimate health issue a ban would still be grossly pre-mature.
Lastly you said, "we all have the right to breathe clean air."
Not only is that not quite true (you do have the right to breathe, but you can't choose which air gets in) or valid (Logically, though I doubt anyone will see it this way, if that was true, then you should be trying to figure out a way to clean the existing air), but it is also a silly notion to think that even if you eliminate second hand smoke you will be breathing clean air. If you want clean air that badly, there are far more important pollutants than second hand smoke to worry about.
March 16, 2009 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Call Steve sauder, for a donation he may give you the right to put one in your yard.
March 16, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
oh4thelufof: I have wondered the same thing! If Emporia has been such a dirty, deadly tomb of toxic smoke for all these years, I would think the obituary column in The Gazette would require a full page each and every day!
Crackhead and Sarge have been brainwashed, or are members of the elitist anti-tobacco troopers, and led to believe that this is a health issue. If the situation in Emporia were half as bad as they describe, our city would be a ghost town by now.
This issue is about freedom, common sense, tolerance, and the right to make choices instead of having a few socially superior nannys force their choices upon us. What ever happened to the promise of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?
Save laws for the unlawful and punishment for criminals.
Vote "NO" on April 7.
March 16, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Robert,
I hope you have read the whole surgeon generals report, all 700+ pages, but I doubt it. If you had you wouldn't be quoting him. And speaking of surgeon generals, should we take everything they say as scientific fact? Remember the surgeon general who said we should teach 3rd graders sex education and teenagers how to masterbate to prevent the spread of aids?
Steve
March 16, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
djdiablo (anonymous) says...
allow me to repeat myself...
Linda (Corbin) 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 (lie) 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 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
"How do you know the quality of my life wouldn't be better if we had this ban 5 years ago?"
Because I have asked you before about what medical conditions you suffer from and you admitted there are none, but you anticipate them later. You have also indicated that you want this ban as a kind of preemptive retribution for those anticipated health issues. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
March 16, 2009 at 3:53 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 )
methusla (anonymous) says...
What mr. Grover, the CAE and the rest of the ban smoking supporters absolutely refuse to accept as fact is that there are many, many things we are all exposed to in our everyday lives, both man made and natural that, can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma. Also a predisposition of heredity also has to be considered in why and who may contract a particular disease or illness.
The 2006 SG report as much as says so in two chapters one called Methodologic Issues and the other titled Confounding.
Also the American Cancer Society also says that even though you are exposed to a risk factor for cancer, that doesn't mean you will get the disease ! The American Lung Foundation says almost the same thing and the American Heart Association does also. Smoking, SHS is not the only controllable risk of cancer, heart disease, etc.. For instance read this little piece of info, from the American Heart Association,
"Cigarette and tobacco smoke, high blood cholesterol, high blood pressure, physical inactivity, obesity and diabetes are the six major independent risk factors for coronary heart disease that you can modify or control."
So you see smoking/SHS is not the only controlable factor in causing heart disease.
Here is another piece of information from the American Heart Association.
Traffic Triples Risk of Heart Attack
Monday, March 16, 2009
filed under: moms are talking about
FOX: Those caught up in heavy traffic have three times the risk of having a heart attack within an hour, a German study presented at the American Heart Association's 49th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease in Florida said.
So are we going to mandate that everyone eat certain foods, excersize, ban diabetes,ban obesity, and high blood pressure. How dare anyone even entertain the thought that our own personal choices of life styles is any business of anyone except the individual person who is living their chosen life style. If you don't like a particular live style, etc., don't hang around it. The choice is yours, and noone elses !
VOTE NO
March 16, 2009 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Keep it up, Crackinsack. Every time you post an anti-smoker hate message you make every anti-ban blogger on here appear to be a Harvard graduate in comparison.
March 16, 2009 at 4:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Crackinsack-- you wrote, "How does that VERY SAME smoke become absolutely harmless once the smoker exhales it? What kind of sorcery is this?"
I cannot sufficiently answer your question with the space allotted on this forum. The short answer would be the sorcery of the human respiratory system. We smoke to get those chemicals into our system, our lungs take them out of the smoke and put them there. Much like it extracts oxygen from air and puts it into our system.
But I'm afraid it is not that simple. Maybe this will help.
The lungs are also important in the body's defense against infection and other harmful environmental factors. While the nose is the first line of defense against inhaled harmful materials, the lungs provide the second line of defense. Inhaled particles (smoke, pollution) or infectious agents (bacteria, viruses) pass through the mouth or nose and lodge in the lungs.
Mucus, a sticky fluid produced in the lungs, can trap these inhaled agents and aid the lungs' protective white blood cells (macrophages, neutrophils) in the engulfment and destruction of bacteria and other harmful materials. Coughing is the best way to clear mucus and other materials from the lungs; however, the larger airways have tiny hairlike cells called cilia that aid in this process. The cilia beat with a rhythm fast enough, and a force sufficient enough, to propel mucus and cells up the airways to be coughed out or swallowed. When a person smokes, the cilia are inactivated or destroyed, allowing thick mucus to accumulate and compromise lung defense.
http://www.aarc.org/klein/lungs.asp
This also explains why exhaled cigarette smoke lakes the "blue" color of side stream smoke. Most of the things making up the smoke become "lodged in the lungs".
That and a little hocus pocus is why non smokers don't get addicted to smoking because all of the "good stuff" in the smoke is in the smoker not the air around him/her.
March 16, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Should have read "smoke lacks the "blue" color of side stream smoke. "
In my defense some lakes do look blue.
March 16, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
"Or it could be that nonsmokers don’t see any appeal in killing themselves and others while smelling like poo in the process."
Believe I am at a point in my life where I have very little choice on whether or not I smoke. Sad but true. Made my bed and am lying in it comfortably. Plus I look so damn cool when I smoke (our younger readers should remember that looking cool is way better than being healthy). In digression I say with the utmost confidence of conviction that the reason nonsmokers don't get addicted cigarettes due to second hand smoke is that its just not that harmful.
March 16, 2009 at 5:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
First crack argued " Health " issue, then " Rights " issue, then " Learn a new lifestyle, because I/we say so " and now its a " Feasability " issue. Geeeeez !
I believe that the best thing for the City Commissioners to do, is to hold a special session and just repeal the proposed CAE smoking ban ordinance and reinstate the existing smoking restriction ordinance and tell the CAE to quit trying to run peoples lives for them and to never propose such an unnecessary ordinance again !
However with the influential, better than you people who are members of the CAE, I doubt that will happen.
How many of you knew or know that the CAE is listed on the State Wide Smoking Ban Bill as a proponent of the Bill.
VOTE NO
March 16, 2009 at 5:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
This is too funny. I just saw one of those green signs. The lies and propaganda sure do run rampant with the ban supporters.
If 2nd hand smoke kills, shouldn't there be actual bodies?
At least the signs do have one bit of truth:
It said something about saying yes for the right to breathe clean air.
Told you it wasn't about health.
March 16, 2009 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
You know what amazes me about the ban smoking advocates. Several times now they have stated it is their " RIGHT " to breath clean air ! I wonder how many of them know just how poluted their so called " clean air really is " I imagine if they could see the results of a test of so called " clean air " they would have a siezure from the shock of the test results. Just because you can't see or smell a potential health hazard, doesn't mean it is not there or present in the air, clean or otherwise.
March 16, 2009 at 7:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
To all ban supporters:
How about this really real risk? Current media regulations and current smoking allowed businesses keep most smoking activity out of my children's line of sight. I prefer that they not see it because I do believe the statistics about fewer kids seeing it = fewer teens starting the habit. If all the smokers are pushed out onto sidewalks we walk along for fresh air and exercise, aren't they going to see more of it and be put at greater risk of starting it as teens? I don't appreciate that. Right now, we are happy to reward businesses that don't allow it or have a separate section, so they aren't seeing it on a regular basis and love our evening Commercial Street walks with plenty of fresh air and few loiterers. I don't know if you've noticed, but groups of people who have been drinking are also prone to boisterous use of foul language and often inappropriate conversation--another element our kids are currently protected from by those privately owned business walls. Please consider the reality of the plight of children where this ban is concerned and vote NO. Leave the smoking in indoor adult environments instead of dragging it out on the streets to influence all the children.
March 16, 2009 at 7:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
orlando (anonymous) says...
What about the air that is filled with smoke from burning pastures, charcoal grills, fireplaces (especially when people burn trash in the fireplace), traffic on the streets and highways that go near our homes? How can we possibly survive all this bad air? Will these be the next to be legislated against? (I don't know about the good smells from Dolly Madison, or from the barbecue/smoked meat restaurants---are those dangerous, too?
Vote no---our right to choose is being taken away. As many have already said, most places in this town are already smoke free.
I am a nonsmoker, and avoid places where there is smoke.
March 16, 2009 at 8:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"As many have already said, most places in this town are already smoke free.
I am a nonsmoker, and avoid places where there is smoke."
I feel exactly the same. Vote NO.
“smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death.”
Exactly why I quit smoking a decade and a half ago. With the current pre ban laws it is very easy to avoid shs.
In this fragile economy it is more important to think about the effect the ban will have on businesses. This isn't a good time for people to lose their jobs because there just aren't a lot of other jobs to go to. I say stick with the current laws and education on the harms of smoking to reduce the number of smokers and let the market take care of the problem. This isn't the time to throw a wrench into the works like this.
Vote NO.
March 16, 2009 at 8:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
But orlando according to the ban smoking supporters everything else that maybe a health hazard are necessary evils and tobacco smoke and its by products, the people who smoke, businesses and business owners that allow smokers and smoking in their businesses are the only ones or things worthy of having a ban placed on them.
Sounds like a very targeted and selfish ban campaign to me !
VOTE NO
March 16, 2009 at 9:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Well, I guess no one wants to talk about the predicament we are going to be in concerning the children if this ban passes. Guess I'll go on to bed...........
March 16, 2009 at 9:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Oh: I don't know where you go, but I see smokers everywhere outside. Try walking into Walmart or any other high traffic area and see if you can avoid it. If I see it, kids see it too.
March 16, 2009 at 10:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Meth: If our air is so polluted, shouldn't we take steps to clean it? And since SHS is considered to be the No. 1 preventable killer, shouldn't that be our first target?
March 16, 2009 at 10:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
I remember Denver, Dayton & LA with an orange metallic haze when I was a child forty years ago. I can still remember that smell, I think it was air pollution, mayby CAE can finance real air pollution, I will take a smokey bar in Kansas over the big city anyday.
March 16, 2009 at 10:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired;
You said,Oh: I don't know where you go, but I see smokers everywhere outside.Try walking into Walmart or any other high traffic area and see if you can avoid it. If I see it, kids see it too.
Isn't that the exact point, o4thelufof was making in their statement.
Isn't that where you want smokers to be is outside ? Now you are complaining about the smokers you have to pass getting into Walmart ! Isn't that what I have been saying all along, that you ban smoking advocates will also try to ban smoking outdoors and then in private homes and vehicles !
People as you can see ! If this smoking ban passes, there will definately be more bans to come. Just look at the comments that the smoking ban advocates have been making and you will see their agenda is to control the very life styles of everyone .
If you don't want to live under the heel of the CAE and its supporters VOTE NO !
March 16, 2009 at 10:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
I like LA and Denver, but you are right...too polluted. I like a good Kansas bar, too, but many of those are too polluted, too.
March 16, 2009 at 10:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
But Meth, at least outdoors, the smoke has a chance to disappate. Indoors, where is it going to go?
Personally, I'd rather see smokers enjoy their addiction in their own homes, away from all public. However, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Before you jump, I AM NOT a member of CAE. I just agree with their cause.
March 16, 2009 at 10:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired;
First of all SHS, according to some, is only one of a list of preventable killers and no it should not be the 1st thing targeted.
There are other pollutants and polluters that are just as toxic or more toxic than SHS, and those should be the first things targeted for clean air bans. Such as the burning of biomass materials, coal fired power generating plants, coal fired coke ovens, etc. and it should not matter whether these are thought of as necessary things, if they pollute the air and have the potential to cause harm, then why not ban them 1st and really make a big start to cleaning up the air.
March 16, 2009 at 11:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
Exactly Meth, priorities
March 16, 2009 at 11:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Well, I haven't made it to bed yet, so I guess I'll say something here. 1sgt, it's not that my kids don't see smoking happen at all--they just don't see it often. We are at Walmart less than once a week and there isn't always someone out there. In our personal lives they don't see it at all even though there are some relatives that do it--they just remain out of sight to not influence deadly habits. This ban will push it out into my kids faces--is this truly necessary?
March 16, 2009 at 11:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired;
In your last statement you stated, " Personally, I'd rather see smokers enjoy their addiction in their own homes, away from all public. However, that's not going to happen anytime soon."
Does that mean that we can expect a smoking ban in our own homes to be proposed by the CAE, its supports and people like you ? Because that is what I have been saying all along, once a ban like this smoking ban starts and is implimented, the bans will not stop coming and you just admitted that a smoking ban in our own homes is imminent !
So people there you have it straight from a smoking ban supporters own mouth, 1sgt_retired to be exact who said " Personally, I'd rather see smokers enjoy their addiction in their own homes, away from all public. However, that's not going to happen anytime soon."
People of Emporia, If you want to protect the SANCTITY of your home, your RIGHTS in your own home and elsewhere and you want your children and future generations to have any personal rights or civil liberties at all then you need to, no you must VOTE NO on this unnecessary and " RIGHTS " abolishing smoking ban !
March 16, 2009 at 11:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
OOPS;
I got so excited to respond to 1sgt_retired I said a ban in our own homes, and meant to say a ban outside is imminent according to 1sgt_retired, sorry for the mistake. However I still believe that if this ban is approved there will be more to come and possibly a smoking ban in our own homes. I apologize for the misunderstanding of what 1sgt_retired said.
I guess I had better quit for tonight and rest my old tired eyes and body. Good night all !
March 16, 2009 at 11:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
night meth
March 16, 2009 at 11:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
Do I have to testify in court after I call the Smoking Police and have my clients arrested and fined or do they have to be caught in the act,,,,,,,,,not good for repeat business,,,lol
March 17, 2009 at 12:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
get REAL
March 17, 2009 at 12:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Vote NO
and choose where you Go!
Free in Emporia
March 17, 2009 at 7:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Awww...Meth...no problem here.
March 17, 2009 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Penny (anonymous) says...
If you want a beautiful green "Vote Yes" sign in your yard contact the Committee for a Healthier Emporia at healthieremporia@hotmail.com . No donation required; I know because I got one and money was never even mentioned.
Think Green, Go Clean!!
March 17, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Crackinsack: How old are you? Six? Please leave the debate to the intelligent adults.
March 17, 2009 at 11:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Committee for a Healthy Emporia doesn't need to ask for money, they get the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grant money. BIG money. Have they reported ALL their funding yet? Make sure they include the full page newspaper ads, and the radio ads. They will say that is not their money as it comes in through the Kansas Health Foundation, (Who gets THEIR money from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation). These ads support the political agenda of the CAE, and have to be reported. No hiding of lobbying and influence peddling.
March 17, 2009 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"Here, have X dollars to make sure my grandkids have a chance to be exposed to SHS."
If you are taking your grandkids or your own kids into a bar you are just wrong wrong wrong. If you are taking your kids into one of the very few restaurants that still allow smoking perhaps you should choose another one. The chances of "accidentally" going to a smoking allowed restaurant is pretty small considering that the vast majority already are smoke free. I have heard that the smoke smell is very evident as soon as you open the door so turning around and going to one of the many other restaurants that are smoke free is a very easy thing to do. The reason most restaurants are smoke free is because there are fewer and fewer smokers and supply and demand works. The reason that there are only a few bars that are smoke free is because most people that go to bars aren't generally too concerned about their health after all they are going to bars. There are however now people who claim to be very concerned about their health that want to go to bars and supply and demand is meeting their need, we now have two nonsmoking bars. This should be plenty for the "healthy" drinkers out there. If it is not and they pack out those places it will be noticed and someone else will want in on all that business and go nonsmoking or open up another nonsmoking bar. The free market is working, let it. Vote NO!
March 17, 2009 at 1:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Don't worry, seriouslyfolks. Crack isn't the type of person to have kids or grandkids, if you know what I mean. ; ) Nope, the line stops there, so it is urgent to crack that the world conform within cracks lifetime.
March 17, 2009 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"I would like there to be no indoor smoking in my lifetime so I don't develop complications from SHS. Is that wrong to want that?"
I don't believe you are wrong for wanting this but it is easily avoidable now. You can do something about it in your own life without having to tell business owners their..................... well............ their business. You don't need the long arm of the law to protect you from something that is so easily avoided. If you are a waiter or bar tender and you knew that their would be smoke when you applied for the job I really don't feel sorry for you. You made a choice and now you have to live with it. I heard that McDonald's on the turnpike pays pretty good because they have a hard time getting and keeping help and I know they are smokefree establishments, perhaps that would be a good place for you to work if you are currently working in a bar/restaurant environment. Most people that are waiters/bartenders say that they do it for the big tip money but I can't imagine anyone giving you any tips if you talk to them the way you talk to people on here.
March 17, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Why, dear crackinsack, I wasn't implying anything obscure. It is pretty obvious that you are not in any commitment with the potential for furthering the next generation. Your posts indicate that you are surrounded by friends and family, but that none of them cohabit with you. Some people arrange their lives this way. For some it is very purposeful because they don't ever want to have to sacrifice to be a parent, and others do it because parenting just doesn't happen with the ingredients they put together to form their life. Either way, I don't believe you are a person who has any goals that involve children. It's not really an issue, but seriouslyfolks has mentioned that possibility in your life a couple of times now, and I thought I'd put my two cents in. I do believe it is relevant to this smoking thing insofar as your view of this for future generations is hypothetical and has little real life parental experience or motivation included in it. I personally would like to hear your take on my point about the heightened visual exposure that this ban will bring to kids, but you have avoided commenting on it both times I have brought it up and I believe that is due to a lack of interest or investment in the children angle. Thus, I do not believe you are the type to have kids or grandkids.
March 17, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Okay, crack. I don't really care about your personal information, but I am a bit more intrigued about your take on this ban making smoking more visible to children, now that you have implied that you have some. I noticed that in your attempt to protect your precious identity that you STILL haven't commented on that.
March 17, 2009 at 9:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crack, do your beliefs move you to action ? If so how can you judge a person on their actions and not their beliefs ?
Did your belief in a smoking ban, not move you to the action of supporting such a ban ?
Again I ask you, did your belief move you to supporting a smoking ban and is supporting a smoking ban not considered as acting upon that belief !
When you believe in something you usually act because of what you believe !
March 17, 2009 at 9:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Oh, yes, and Steve(rbow),
Speaking of signs, we would gladly display one if you have any spares. I didn't say anything earlier because we are in a highly repetitive traffic area, and the voters around here are already like-minded about it. But if you have any that are in a box instead of out to be seen, we want one. If you want to hold out for higher visibility, then please do.
Michelle
March 17, 2009 at 9:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Steve: I would like to join Michelle and display one of those bright yellow signs of freedom in my front yard. How do I get one?
March 17, 2009 at 10:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
moving to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
March 18, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )