For the ban
Sarah Wyrick, Judy Wild, Bev Dillman, Clara Marie Largent
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
ON APRIL 7, an election will be held in Emporia. In addition to city commission and board of education races, the issue of a smoking ordinance will also be on the ballot. A vote of “Yes” will uphold the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants that the city commission recently passed.
These places in Kansas have already passed ordinances against smoking in restaurants, bars and workplaces: Abilene, Concordia, Derby, Garden City, Harvey County, Hesston, Hutchinson, Johnson County, Lawrence, Newton, Parsons and Salina.
Would you like to go into a restaurant or a bar without having to hold your breath? Would you prefer that your clothes and hair not smell like cigarette smoke after you eat out? Do you think the people — mostly young — who work in these establishments should not have to breathe second-hand smoke every day on the job? Do you want our city to be a leader in new ideas and not the last to join a movement? If so, please vote “Yes” on April 7.
Sarah Wyrick
Judy Wild
Bev Dillman
Clara Marie Largent
Emporia
deluvly1 (anonymous) says...
I'm perplexed…why on earth would I care what they’ve done in Abilene, Concordia, Derby, Garden City, Harvey County, Hesston, Hutchinson, Johnson County, Lawrence, Newton, Parsons and Salina?
I don’t live there, nor do I want to. I kinda picked Emporia 30+ years ago because I THOUGHT it was a different place with a different mind-set.
Then to read, "Do you want our city to be a leader in new ideas and not the last to join a movement? "
Looks more and more like I was wrong. They do lots of stuff in lots of other places but I'm pretty sure I don't care...and it especially doesn't mean I want to live---or in some cases---even visit these places.
What a weird criteria for deciding how you live, sorta like, "well, all the other KIDS are doin' it..."
Strange and stranger.
March 17, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zander (anonymous) says...
I wonder how many smokers that come to Emporia will leave because it is a non-smoking community. Oh wait, who cares, they probably wouldn't spend any money anyway. They only come here to pollute the local taverns.
March 17, 2009 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
djdiablo (anonymous) says...
I could not possibly care any less what “they’ve” done in Abilene, Concordia, Derby, Garden City, Harvey County, Hesston, Hutchinson, Johnson County, Lawrence, Newton, Parsons and Salina.
I guess I was raised to be independent and free thinking and going along with crowd does not necessarily appeal to me.
I don’t like the politics of some businesses so I don’t go into them. I like to travel, but I don’t agree with China and its policies so I’ve never visited there. I don’t like the politics in San Francisco so I don’t go back there. I don’t give a fig about gambling so I’ve never been back to Las Vegas. I don’t care for certain ethnic foods such as Thai so I don’t go into Thai restaurants.
I don’t like smelling like smoke so I don’t go into places where smoking is allowed. What’s the problem?
I can read. I know the difference between a NO SMOKING sign and a sign that says SMOKING PERMITTED.
I have to wonder about this Chicken Little mentality of the Stop Smoking Crusade. Grow up. Make decisions. Be happy.
March 17, 2009 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rox_alan (anonymous) says...
I use to be a smoker and I can see both views but as a citizen of Emporia by voting yes you are taking away the rights of people to live the way they want. You have the choice whether to go into an establishment whether it is smoking or non smoking. But you are not giving the smokers that choice they have to do what is told of them. That is so WRONG! So wise up people of this community first this ban then what else will they take away from us. Our right to have children. Think about it folks slowly but surely they are taking away our rights and you're letting them.
March 17, 2009 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
To the four ladies who wrote the letter:
You asked?
"Do you want our city to be a leader in new ideas and not the last to join a movement? "
If it means given away the rights of personal property ownership, I want Emporia to be the last city in the world to do it.
Oh and Salina is in the middle of revoking their ban.
Steve
March 17, 2009 at 4:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
Sarah, Judy, Bev, and Clara all said, "Would you prefer that your clothes and hair not smell like cigarette smoke after you eat out?"
Translation: "We want to ban smoking because it stinks."
Once again, not a health issue.
Stop the lies, Vote NO!
March 17, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
If you will or can remember in Germany in the mid to late 1930s there was a movement that professed to be a forward thinking and progressive movement it was called the " National Socialist Party" its leader was a man known as " Adolf Hitler " he professed that he could institute health, welfare and social reform and bring Germany back to the glory it once had. Now do any of you remember what happend after the Nation Socialist Party gained power and convinced everyone that they were their best hope for their future ? Peoples freedoms, rights, etc., were absolutely trampled into non-existence. The children were recuited to spy on and report any violation of the rules, even to report their own mothers, fathers, relatives and friends . Also the same thing happened in Russia during the Stalin era and more redently Afghanistan and Iraq ! Once bans relating to any and all certain personal rights, civil liberties, no matter how insignificant or unnecessary they may seem to some and freedoms are implemented, there will be more and will definately be very hard or impossible to stop or reverse.
If you wish to preserve your personal rights and civil liberties, the only way to do so is VOTE NO.
March 17, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
I'm sorry, ladies, but I fail to understand the argument. First, I don't give a rat's rump what they are doing in Abilene, Concordia, Derby, Garden City, Harvey County, Hesston, Hutchinson, Johnson County, Lawrence, Newton, Parsons and Salina. I live in Emporia and I like to think we are better than those other cities. Why should we feel it necessary to lower and compromise our standards in order to "join a movement?"
Second, there is already a very well-defined, fair, and effective smoking ban in Emporia. Smoking is banned in all public retail and office buildings, government buildings and schools, and sports arenas and stadiums. Restaurants are permitted, and rightfully so, to decide whether or not to allow smoking in their establishments and 90% choose (notice I said "choose") not to. That is their right and that is fine. Most bar and tavern owners choose to allow smoking, but some choose to remain smoke-free. Again, that is the owner's choice and the cash register will decide if that is a wise decision or not.
I very much doubt that any of the well-intentioned ladies above have even read the proposed new smoking ban. If they had, they would understand why so many good folks, smokers and non-smokers alilke, so vehemently oppose it.
The ban is akin to an edict from the dark ages. It is far too oppressive; an over-the-top reaction to a non-existent problem. The ban eliminates the right for intelligent adults to make their own choices. It forces the disabled and elderly to step into dark alleys and streets in rain, cold, and snow to enjoy a smoke with a beverage. It takes away the right of a proud veteran to smoke a cigar in the confines of his own private VFW or Eagles Club. The ban turns honest citizens, your friends and neighbors, into criminals and your fire department into a law enforcement agency.
We already have a smoking ban policy in Emporia, and it works. This proposed new ban crosses way over the line and will create hardship, loss of freedom, inequality, loss of business and revenue, and give "Big Brother" even stronger and more intrusive control over our personal and private lives.
There were no problems with smoking, smokers, second-hand smoke, or citizens dying in the streets before the secretive and deceptive CAE introduced this restrictive ban and attempted to sneak into law under cover of night.
This smoking ban has little to do with health and has everything to do with freedom, individual rights, and the very basic core of what makes America great---the right to make personal decisions and choices.
Vote with reason, not emotion. Vote "NO" on April 7.
March 17, 2009 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Fpark (anonymous) says...
I have seen the smoking or non smoking issue in several states and countries.In the end non smoking has always prevailed.
So Emporia get ready for a bit of fresh air with your beer and meals,I really don't see any major social changes as a result...
March 17, 2009 at 5:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Fpark: You obviously haven't read our proposed smoking ban, and I'm sure the elite little group who wrote it appreciate that. That was their game plan from the beginning. It is so much more restrictive and illogical than the bans in other cities as to be laughable... if it wasn't so sad.
No one in Emporia, including smokers, oppose sensible restrictions against smoking, but this ban is more like a medieval edict than a ban.
Put on your patriotic pants when you go to vote on April 7.
Vote "NO".
March 17, 2009 at 6:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
crack said
"Well said, gang."
You are correct crack it does sound like a gang.
Vote no to more socialism.
March 17, 2009 at 6:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
The sad and unfortunate thing is. The State Wide Smoking Ban reads almost exactly like the proposed smoking ban that the CAE proposed for Emporia. And why shouldn't it, our own Emporia CAE along with others are the proponents of the State Wide Smoking Ban. If you wish to read the State Wide Smoking Ban all you have to do is go to www.kansas.gov, click the search present bills and enter Bill 25 and read it.
This State Wide Smoking Ban Bill is as restrictive or more restrictive than the Emporia ban and Mast, Hill and Barnett are all strong supporters of the State Wide Ban !
Therefore if the State Wide Smoking Ban passes, you may as well kiss your personal rights, freedoms and civil liberties good by and get used to being ruled by STATE SPONSERED AND SUPPORTED TYRANNY !
An individuals freedoms, personal rights and civil liberties are being taken away from all of us little by little by those who wish to be the ruling class of America and they are doing so with the help of the local, county and state government elected officials.
March 17, 2009 at 6:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
history_nerd (anonymous) says...
Oh methusla. Oh you made my day!! Comparing something as harmless as a smoking ban to Nazi's. Oh man I can't stop laughing. I just can't stop. Good lord.
March 17, 2009 at 7:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trbluma (anonymous) says...
They'll never figure it out until we ban something that they like. IE abortion or welfare or whatever. We might as well admit it, you can't have a battle of wits with unarmed people.
vote NO
March 17, 2009 at 7:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
znasr (anonymous) says...
Oh, so Emporia supports freedom of choice now?
That's news to me.
March 17, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eronga_native (anonymous) says...
In my work place, half the workers are SMOKERS and is sickening having to inhale their poison, doing THEIR work while they are doing what they do every 15 minutes, taking a SMOKE BREAK and having to put up with their "I don't care attitude" when it's time for their next one. EMPORIANS, as non-smokers we also have rights, lets stand for'em!. Lets do our part to stop or prevent our 8,9, 10 year olds from ever getting addicted to this dangerous, disgusting habit....Please...Please..... Vote YES!!!!! on April 7th
March 17, 2009 at 8:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"Oh, so Emporia supports freedom of choice now?"
If you are talking about the single choice of one person to abort 100% of another persons choices, then yes Emporia does support it. It is federal law, that includes Emporia.
March 17, 2009 at 8:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
history_nerd:
If you really were a history nerd you wouldn't laugh.
Get on the ball and just type in Nazi smoking ban on Yahoo!
2,460,000 hits on that subject. Read up you might see how close the current bans compares to Hitlers. You might find this offensive, I know I do. That is why I am voting No, & I'LL CHOOSE WHERE TO GO>
March 17, 2009 at 8:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
eronga , your wronga!
You need a law passed to teach your 8, 9, 10 year olds what? That they can't make there own Informed decisions. You want them to grow up thinking that the government should make all of their decsions for them? I guess it does take a village for some people. If you are talking about right now keep them out of smoking allowed venues or hire a babysitter. I worry for the future of our once great nation.
Steve
March 17, 2009 at 8:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
history_nerd;
Maybe this will stop your laughing and give you something to read and educate yourself !
Just go to the following link.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/s...
March 17, 2009 at 8:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
history_nerd;
Here is a little reading or you edification from the encyclopedia !
The first modern, nationwide tobacco ban was imposed by the Nazi Party in every German university, post office, military hospital, and Nazi Party office, under the auspices of Karl Astel's Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research, created in 1941 under orders from Adolf Hitler.[24] Major anti-tobacco campaigns were widely broadcast by the Nazis until the demise of the regime in 1945.[
Are you still laughing !
March 17, 2009 at 8:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Heres a little tidbit for the person who has all the jewish friends.
German Jews enraged as group likens smoking ban to Nazi rule
Heres the website. check it out.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/9...
March 17, 2009 at 8:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
history_nerd;
Another website to look at.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/esta...
March 17, 2009 at 8:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Here is another interesting websit.
http://www.thesmokingban.org/
March 17, 2009 at 8:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Do I need to list more ?
VOTE NO !
March 17, 2009 at 8:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
"Do you want our city to be a leader in new ideas and not the last to join a movement?"
As this question was preceded by a list of twelve places that already have smoking bans (not as comprehensive as this one on most counts) it would seem that the option of leader to do it is already off the table. If we do enact this ban, it would seem we are, in fact, the last to join the movement. If this is the purpose for this ban, then we would be better to be the leader in voting it down. DUH!
eronga...:
"Lets do our part to stop or prevent our 8,9, 10 year olds from ever getting addicted to this dangerous, disgusting habit..."
Pushing the smokers outside of the walls that shielded them from the view of 8, 9 and 10 year olds, is not an effective way to influence our children to avoid cigarettes. If you don't believe me, take a look at all the statistics that convinced the government to ban smoking scenes from television and movies rated less than R.
znasr:
"Oh, so Emporia supports freedom of choice now?"
If you are eluding to abortion rights, you need to understand the parallel. The pregnant person had the choice to engage in activities that could get her pregnant--she had a choice. This parallels the choice every consumer in town has to patronize a business that allows smoking or not to. When one person makes a choice that ends up with a result that is inconvenient for them, a third party (baby or business owner) should not be made to suffer by being abandoned or discriminated against by the law.
March 17, 2009 at 9:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Here is another website that makes for interesting reading
about the money behind the smoking ban movement !
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2...
March 17, 2009 at 11:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Would you like to go into a restaurant or a bar without having to hold your breath? Would you prefer that your clothes and hair not smell like a call girl or stripper after you eat out because the person behind you wears a ton of cologne or perfume? Do you think the people — mostly those unable to employ common sense — aren't smart enough to recognize they don't have to patronize the handful of establishments that still allow smoking by choice? Do you want our city to be a sheep by following the rest of the herd? If not, please vote “NO” on April 7.
March 18, 2009 at 2:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
history_nerd (anonymous) says...
Yes, yes i am. You are hilarious.
March 18, 2009 at 3:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tell (anonymous) says...
Gee mom all my friends are doing it can't we too. Real leaders.
March 18, 2009 at 4:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
eronga_native posted, "In my work place, half the workers are SMOKERS and is sickening having to inhale their poison, doing THEIR work while they are doing what they do every 15 minutes, taking a SMOKE BREAK and having to put up with their "I don't care attitude" when it's time for their next one. EMPORIANS, as non-smokers we also have rights, lets stand for'em!. Lets do our part to stop or prevent our 8,9, 10 year olds from ever getting addicted to this dangerous, disgusting habit....Please...Please..... Vote YES!!!!! on April 7th"
Since you are apparently exposed to that 'poison' 5 days per week, 8 hours or more per day, maybe you can tell us what 2nd hand smoke related health problems you doctor is treating you for?
2nd hand smoke is supposed to be deadly, you know (that's what all the money-green signs say). Shouldn't you and everyone else in you place of employment be in the intensive care unit?
Also, the key to keeping 8, 9, and 10 year old kids from "getting addicted" is education and parental involvement. If you need the government to raise your children for you, maybe you shouldn't have children.
March 18, 2009 at 8:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Well, history_nerd if you are still laughing then you were not wise enough to visit any of the sites I suggested and read any of the information. And if you did visit the sites and are still laughing, then you obviously could not understand or comprhend any of the info.
March 18, 2009 at 9:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
history_nerd;
Perhaps you should take a look at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/9439...
and after visiting the site, if you are still laughing, then I feel truly sorry for you !
March 18, 2009 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...
Meth: I looked at your sites. All I can say is I now have a clearer understanding of your political leanings.
March 18, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
1sgt_retired;
And just what do you believe my political leanings are exactly. Come on lets here the attack !
For your information my political view is one of being a person with native american ancestors and one of being an American with guaranteed FREEDOMS, CERTAIN PERSONAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES that are supposed to be protected from the possibility of anyone taking them from me by using elected officials to take them from me or other individuals or group of individuals, so come on 1sgt_retired, lets here the insults, etc. from you and your friends and other ban smoking advocates. Also I do lean toward the political belief of doing what is fair and imparshial for all citizens and this proposed smoking that you and others have been brainwashed into so fervently supporting is neither fair nor imparshial and does in fact take away certain personal rights, freedoms and certain civil liberties and is demeaning and degrading to a certain group of individuals, businesses and business owners !
If the sites I posted so offended you and other ban smoking advocates, then you and the others do not want to fully know the truth and when you see and read the truth and the facts, all you can think of doing is to start throwing inuendos, degrading remarks, insults, etc., then start throwing. I believe we all know, from your and others past posts what your beliefs and agenda is. So come on start with the degrading attacks on me. If you expect me to just sit by and take the attacks, without responding in like kind or worse, then your are very badly mistaken, so come on start the attacks and slams.
March 18, 2009 at 10:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Kujiin (anonymous) says...
VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO! VOTE NO!
Don't let your elected officials take away anymore of your choices. I don't even smoke and I'm Voting NO. Why because there are bigger issues here than you realize. This is only the beginning! Don't let them do it!
March 18, 2009 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
1st off, I'm a smoker (and so is my wife). I'm having a hard time understanding the reasons against this ban.
What "freedoms" are we losing? If the ban goes into effect, I can still enjoy my favorite bar. I can still smoke, just not indoors (and affecting the health of others). I'm not excluded from entering any public establishment.
How is this ban going to "hurt" businesses (especially the bars & taverns)? If smoking is not permitted in any bar or tavern in Emporia, how is their business going to "hurt"? Do people go the bars/taverns to smoke or do they go to enjoy a nice cold beer, a drink, socialize with friends, enjoy a good debate, watch a game, play a bit of pool? Actually, I think they would save money; clean/replace ventilation filters less often, not have to constantly clean/pick up cigarette butts/ash trays.
Why do they need proof that SHS is not healthy? Do they honestly believe that SHS is harmless? SHS has the potential to increase the risk of all sorts of harmful consequences (asthma, cardiovascular, etc.). It affects everyone in a different way (is it fair to put the non-smoking employees of these establishments at such a risk?). If it can be limited or prevented (indoors), wouldn't prevention be a logical choice (since so many smokers won't take it upon them selves to avoid smoking among non-smokers).
Smoking is not permitted where I work. I work over 40 hours a week, and I don't feel that I have "lost" any rights.
Although I don't favor so much government intervention, this ban seems to be a "necessary evil". It's too bad that we Americans can't be more considerate and responsible toward our fellow human beings and not make it necessary for government to decide that they need to do something (since they usually screw it up).
I'll likely abstain from voting on this topic, since I'm not sure which way I want to vote. Like I said, I don't like so much government "control", but on the other hand I don't see or hear any logical reason for voting against it either. I would like to have a better idea of how it will be enforced and the impact on our local law enforcement and fire department, before I vote. Also how will the statewide ban impact Emporia, if it goes through?
Dave R.
March 18, 2009 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Kujiin;
You are exactly right about this smoking ban only being the beginning ! For instance the following is a direct quote from of a paragraph in the CAE and its supporters handbook titled (FUNDAMENTALS OF SMOKE FREE WORKPLACE LAWS)
" Tobacco control advocates should work “from the inside out.” Prior to addressing
outdoor restrictions, communities should first have effective smokefree laws for indoor
environments. Because people are exposed to higher levels of secondhand smoke in
indoor settings than in outdoor ones, it makes sense from a public health perspective to
protect nonsmokers indoors before seeking outdoor air laws."
As you can see they try to get smoking banned indoors first and then they will propose an outdoor smoking ban and after an outdoor ban what will be next bannin smoking in you private vehicle and home ! These people want total control and power over everyones life style and way of living.
VOTE NO !
March 18, 2009 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nmse_s (Shannon Standard) says...
I understand the idea behind equating the smoking ban to the socialist movements of Hitler and Stalin. I just don't feel comfortable saying that the CAE folks are equal to Hitler and Stalin. I only know one indivdual who has advocated for CAE intently and this person would not murder 3 million people because of their religious/ethnic background. Forgive me if I misunderstood what people have said about this.
March 18, 2009 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Dave R.
That was a very good post and I am glad that you are open minded about this. There is a flip side to the smokers being more considerate, the nonsmokers(like myself) being considerate. I know that most bars allow smoking and cater to smokers. I am considerate to the bar owner and the smoking patrons and don't go there and demand that they change the environment to suit my desires. SHS is easily avoidable with the current pre-ban laws and I feel it is truly unnecessary government intervention.
The employees that are affected by shs are something to consider. I feel that if they had a problem with shs they should have considered that when they applied, interviewed, and accepted the job. It is not very considerate to go through that whole process and accept the terms of the employer and then tell the employer to change his/her business to suit you.
There is a lot of inconsideration going on.
Please vote NO.
March 18, 2009 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
nmse_s
I don't think anyone was saying that the CAE folks are equal to Hitler and Stalin. We have compared the tactics of the each with each other but the CAE is obviously not to the extreme of Hitler and Stalin but I'm not comfortable with even a baby step in that direction.
March 18, 2009 at 12:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
nmse_s & nutsabouttools:
Perhaps this will answer both of your above posts>
It all starts out with a small,seemingly innoucous, law or regulation. Then another, and another until all the power is in the hands of government and sooner or later 1 man is the government. This is what happened before in Germany. I or no-one have said that any member of CAE would murder 3 million people because of their ethnic or religious background. The small incremental steps taken by the German government ALLOWED one Insane man to take absolute power and do that.
I have never said that shs is healthy either.
I have stated the levels of shs in my business is below the permissable levels allowed by OSHA, which IS THE government agency in charge of workplace safety.
We have a smoking ordinance already in place that works fine, and allows people the choice of where to do their business. This ban takes away that right by requiring all to adhere to one rule whether they want to or not. I for one am not ready to give up just another SMALL right because before long ALL rights will be gone & you and I will look around and say "What Happened?"
March 18, 2009 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Kujiin (anonymous) says...
Right On! rbow
Sometimes you just have to put your foot down and say enough. It has to start somewhere why not here. You maybe amazed at the results.
Don't Mess With My Rights!
March 18, 2009 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Dave R:
I empathize and relate to your comments and indecision. I, too, am a smoker and, like you, have no problem with the current smoking ban policy in effect in Emporia. I agree with smoking being barred from public buildings, schools, offices, and interior spaces where people are REQUIRED to congregate.
My problem is with the overly-restrictive ban attempting to be rammed down our throats under false pretenses, lies, scare tactics, and Gestapo tactics by a small group of self-serving nicotine narco-nannys intent on dictating law where people CHOOSE to congregate, such as bars, private clubs, and hotel rooms.
Have you read the text of the proposed ban, Dave? It is over the top to the point of being far more punitive than comprehensive. It has little to do with health and a lot to do with prejudice and intolerance. It creates societal classes and forces our fire fighters to become nicotine narcs and drug enforcement agents.
If this ban is allowed to become law it will create far more problems and misery than it claims to cure. It will directly affect lives, incomes, rights, personal freedoms, tax revenues, and tourist (visitor) dollars for our city. It will create hardships for the disabled and elderly and force young women to "step outside" into dark alleys and parking lots in the middle of the night to have a smoke with their drink. The ban will also bring the smoke outside onto sidewalks and store fronts instead of confining it to the privacy of a building. How will that keep the anti-smoking advocates from exposing themselves and their children to the second-hand smoke they claim to so drastically fear?
Worst of all, this ban prevents combat veterans, the men and women who sacrificed to preserve our rights and freedoms, the right and freedom to enjoy a good cigar or cigarette in the confines of their own private club, like the VFW. They fought and died for our freedom and CAE seeks to take away those freedoms in order to appease their need to control lives and dictate behavior.
This ban is only the beginning, Dave. Warlord Walters, CAE, and the overly-self important advocates of this unnecessary attempt at legislating morality and personal choice, won't stop here. Next they will seek to ban smoking anywhere in the city limits, the country, and the state, including your car and your home. When they finish with ridding their pristine world of smelly smokers, who knows what they will go after. Maybe fat people, large dogs, drinkers, or undesirables who drive cars they don't approve of.
This smoking ban isn't about health, Dave. It is about choice, rights, tolerance, common sense, and good ol' fashioned American, worth dying for, "Give me liberty or give me death", "Don't tread on me" freedom.
This is a door we can't afford to open, Dave. Once opened, it can never again be closed.
Vote "NO" on April 7.
March 18, 2009 at 1:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
Thank you Bj,
I'm definitely not in favor of they "way" this bill is written. Especially the the methods in place to "enforce" it. I do believe, however, that the bars & taverns would benefit if they became non-smoking establishments. Even though I'm a smoker, I stopped going to a couple of my "favorite" bars because the smoke was even uncomfortable to me (and I smelled worse after I left than when I smoke "casually"). It's been a few years since I last visited, maybe it's not as bad now. I also don't think it's fair to non-smokers, that even if they like a particular bar, they're left to choose between entering and risking their health.
Has anyone found some info on how the statewide ban will be written (how much does it differ from the proposed Emporia bill and what are the enforcement "conditions")? I'm afraid even if we vote no to the Emporia bill, the statewide ban will go into effect anyhow (because we all know that government knows best. . . N O T).
Dave R.
March 18, 2009 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
nutsaboutools posted, "What "freedoms" are we losing?"
The freedom we are losing is the freedom to choose. Right now, everyone (smokers and nonsmokers alike) have the freedome to choose whether or not they will patronize a business that allows smoking. The ban takes away that freedom - not only from the smokers but the nonsmokers.
Right now, private business owners have the freedom to choose whether or not they will allow a legal product to be used in their privately owned business. The ban takes away that freedom from the business owners who put up their own money, capital, time, and effort to create a successful business.
"How is this ban going to "hurt" businesses (especially the bars & taverns)?"
Do you own a business? Do you depend on that business to feed your family, pay your mortgage and your bills? If not, why are you willing to gamble someone else's livelihood? If you want a nonsmoking establishment, this is a free market society. Feel free to open your own business.
The business owners and patrons have made their choice in this free market society. The business owners have chosen to allow a legal activity to take place in their business. The patrons have made their choice to do business in that establishment. At this point in time, the free market allows business owners and patrons to make that choice. As time goes on, educational campaigns are reducing the demand for nonsmoking businesses and therefore fewer businesses allow smoking. How many restaurants in Emporia allow smoking? How many do not? Fewer children and young adults choose to smoke. Education works. The free market works. Let those forces work rather than having a small group of busy-bodies coerce government intervention.
"Why do they need proof that SHS is not healthy? Do they honestly believe that SHS is harmless? SHS has the potential to increase the risk of all sorts of harmful consequences (asthma, cardiovascular, etc.)."
The evidence that 2nd hand smoke is unhealthy is controversial at best. You have only to look at the previous posts and links provided by both sides of the arguement to see that. Having the potential to cause harm is not the same as definitely causing harm. OSHA has established that certain levels of toxins (even those toxins labeled as carcinogenic) are harmless. I don't think anyone is saying "SHS is not healthy". What people are saying is that the levels of 2nd hand smoke in any establishment in Emporia does not exceed OSHA's safe standards. If someone says the air is toxic or unhealthy, the burden of proof is on them to prove their statements.
"Smoking is not permitted where I work. I work over 40 hours a week, and I don't feel that I have "lost" any rights."
A perfect example of the free market society at work. Unless your place of employment is one of the previously identified "public" places, the owners of your place of employment chose to be smoke free. They weren't legislated into it.
March 18, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
nmse_s posted, "I understand the idea behind equating the smoking ban to the socialist movements of Hitler and Stalin. I just don't feel comfortable saying that the CAE folks are equal to Hitler and Stalin. I only know one indivdual who has advocated for CAE intently and this person would not murder 3 million people because of their religious/ethnic background. Forgive me if I misunderstood what people have said about this."
I'm probably the one who started the whole Hitler thing with the smoking ban. My intent was not (and is not) to equate any individual or any group with Hitler.
HOWEVER, the Nazi regime occured because people say idly by and allowed it to occur. As Hitler committed his atrocities, the citizenry said nothing.
Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf contains the quote "the state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
Whenever I hear anyone say we must curtail a freedom "for the children", no matter how small or seemingly insignificant that freedom may be, I will not sit idly by and allow it. I will absolutely speak out loudly and remind anyone who will listen that was Adolf Hitler's philosophy, too.
I will be accused of having some kind of hero worship for Hitler, but I don't care. I will be accused of being a Nazi or Nazi lover, but I don't care. I will not sit back and say nothing.
Nazi Germany's minister of propaganda said, "If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth."
There have been many studies of the effects of 2nd hand smoke on health. Some of those studies say it is harmful. Some say it is not. The evidence is controversial at best. Saying that the air in any business is poisonous or unhealthy is a lie, unless that statement can be proven by testing the air. Saying that 2nd hand smoke kills people without being able to show evidence that someone's death was actually caused by exposure to 2nd hand smoke, in my opinion, is a lie.
When I see people following in the ways of Nazi Germany or using tactics promoted by Adolf Hitler, I will speak out.
Some people will say they have friends who are Jewish and are offended by references to Hitler and Nazi Germany. I say if those people are offended by those references, too bad. I would rather offend those people by referencing historical facts, than to sit back quietly while people repeat those mistakes.
March 18, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
DaveR;
The State Wide Smoking ban is worded almost exactly like the local proposed smoking ban and in some cases it may be a little more restrictive. In fact Dave the CAE was one of the proponents that brought about the State Wide Ban Bill being introduced to the State Legislature . Therefore the wording is going to the same.
March 18, 2009 at 3:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
To all wondering about the statewide ban. There are currently 2 bills in conference. Senate bill 25 which passed the senate with two amendments; one exempting private clubs that held a private club license on Jan1, 2009. And an exemption for state owned casinos. Now if the state guys and gals were worried about the health issues of smoking why these 2 ammendments? Could it be Revenue money? The hell with the small business owner, but we need to allow smoking in casinos to make money.
This bill is in the Health& Human services committee, and probably won't make it out for a vote.
Senate bill 81 is in committee on the senate side, And I would endorse it as it echoes the current (not proposed) Emporia laws.
It makes me wonder how our three elected state reps can keep pushing for senate bill25 while we are working on a local level to decide it. Maybe a few more people other than me should e-mail Barnett, Hill, and Mast.
March 18, 2009 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
DaveR;
Go to the following website and read the State Wide Smoking Ban Bill for yourself. http://www.kslegislature.org/suppleme...
March 18, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
DaveR or anyone ;
If you wish to read the full 13 page State Wide Smoking Ban Bill go to the following webpage. http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/20...
March 18, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
Thanks methusla & rbow,
I'll check them out.
MrO,
Sorry, but you still haven't answered my questions;
I still don't see, based on your response, how not allowing smoking in the bars is going to cause them to lose their business. If all the bars were no-smoking bars, wouldn't there be more patrons (smokers & non-smokers, just no smoking)?
Health issue; We used asbestos in insulation and automotive brake pads for decades before we established the healths risks (provided proof as you say). We used lead in paint for decades before it was determined that lead posed a serious risk. If there's evidence that SHS could pose some health risk (such as from the many toxic gases released from the smoke), shouldn't we be taking some preventative measures now (instead of waiting until we have absolute proof)? If you can smell burning cigarettes/tobacco, you are inhaling the toxic gases. OSHA sets a minimum standard, they don't eliminate the risk.
I'm sorry, I just don't see it your way. However, I don't think the way this bill is written is right either. I'll likely vote NO, until they get it right.
Dave R.
March 18, 2009 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
time for a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
March 18, 2009 at 7:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )