Rights and wrongs
Linda Enos, Emporia
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
HAVE YOU EVER wondered why there is not a cigarette perfume scent? Perhaps it is because it stinks! If the smoking supporters enjoy that smell, they can wear it but they do not have the right to share it. They talk about rights. What about my right to clean air? I got their message. You do not have to come to their establishments if you do not like the smell of smoke.
In other words, if I feel secondhand smoke is dangerous to my health, I have the right to go somewhere else. If I do not like to breathe smoke, I have the right to go somewhere else. If I do not want to smell like cigarettes, I can go somewhere else. There was a time, if a proprietor did not like safe and sanitary conditions in their establishments, people had the right to go somewhere else. Now the public depends on the government to monitor health and safety conditions in public places because not all businesses care about the public’s health and safety.
Rights are funny things. When people want to do activities that are harmful and clearly offensive to others, they proclaim it their right. They disregard the rights of others to the simple pleasure of breathing clean air when they eat and drink.
Please send the smokers a message by voting, Yes to ban smoking. It is not just for me but for our children and grandchildren. Vote for their right to clean air.
Linda Enos
Emporia
zander (anonymous) says...
You are correct, rights are funny things. But I'm sorry if I feel offended by someone like you telling me that I do not have the right to determine what I will allow or not allow in a business that I own. I am all for you wanting the simple pleasure of breathing clean air, so why don't you just stay out of my place of business? How difficult is that?
March 17, 2009 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Linda, right now you and others DO have the choice.
By voting for this ban you are giving up that right.
You may find 2nd hand smoke offensive, but it has Not been proven to be dangerous in any building in Emporia Kansas.
I hope when our children and grandchildren grow up they will still have SOME rights left and not live in a dictatorship.
Steve
March 17, 2009 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
Steve,
Has firing guns been "proven to be dangerous" in your bar? If not, wouldn't you agree that it's still dangerous regardless of the lack of personalized study? You're losing it if you think it's not dangerous simply because it hasn't been proven so in a particular building. What a terrible argument.
'enry
March 17, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Happiness09 (anonymous) says...
Sky people???
March 17, 2009 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
HenryVIII posted, "Has firing guns been "proven to be dangerous" in your bar? If not, wouldn't you agree that it's still dangerous regardless of the lack of personalized study? You're losing it if you think it's not dangerous simply because it hasn't been proven so in a particular building. What a terrible argument."
Speaking of terrible argument, firing guns inside a private business is probably illegal. Smoking is not illegal.
Shooting a person with a gun has an undeniable consequence. The so-called dangers of 2nd hand smoke are not undeniable, and are in fact highly disputed.
The Federal agency that regulates safety in the workplace (you know - OSHA) has determined levels of exposure that are safe. If you feel that any business violates those OSHA standards, please report that violation to OSHA or have the air tested.
If 2nd hand smoke kills, where are the bodies?
PS - in the original letter to the editor, Lina Enos said, "Perhaps it is because it stinks! "
Proving once again, it is not a health issue. It's a personal preference issue (they want to ban smoking because they think it stinks, not because it's a health issue)
Stop the lies, vote NO.
March 17, 2009 at 4:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Henry, if I sell contaminated beer or drinks in MY bar, that's regulated. SAFETY
If I sell bad food in MY bar, that's regulated. (SAFETY)
If I go over capacity in MY bar that's regulated.SAFETY
If I serve minors in MY bar, that's regulated. SAFETY
When I remodel MY bar that's regulated. SAFETY
These 5 issues have been proven to show effects on peoples health, that is why I am regulated on them and I am inspected on them on a frequent basis. Why no test from the fire or health departments on air quality?
Before someone calls my bar a safety hazard and me a greedy killer because of shs, I want proof in MY bar. Just because you repeat the lie about second hand smoke doesn't make it true. Just because other towns have given up their rights based on junk science doesn't mean Emporia has to.
I know there is no arguing with you, we are just killing time.
Steve
March 17, 2009 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Fpark (anonymous) says...
Have you ever known a smoker that has not tried to quit at least once? I wonder why?
March 17, 2009 at 5:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
Fpark posted, "Have you ever known a smoker that has not tried to quit at least once? I wonder why?"
Fpark, as I said to Julius in another post, Get with the program! The issue isn't about smoking, it's supposed to be about the health effects of exposure to 2nd hand smoke!
Stop the lies, vote NO!
March 17, 2009 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Wow! Someone else that wants to take their kids and/or grandkids to bars. I am way more concerned about this disturbing trend of people wanting to take their kids and/or grandkids to bars than I am some shs confined to bars and a few easily avoidable restaurants.
Linda, please reconsider your desire to take your kids or grandkids to bars. Please think about your kids and/or grandkids and raise them reponsibly. YOU can do it, contrary to the belief that it takes a village.
March 17, 2009 at 7:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
"...voting, Yes to ban smoking. It is not just for me but for our children..." Linda Enos, Emporia Gazette
"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." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
March 17, 2009 at 7:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trbluma (anonymous) says...
They'll never figure it out until we ban something they like. IE abortion ot welfare or whatever. It's hard to have a battle of wits with unarmed people. vote NO
March 17, 2009 at 7:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Yes, please think of the children, like mine, who only rarely see smoking and that is always brief glances of strangers. Think of how they will see groups of smokers standing outside of walls that shielded them from view of my children pre-ban. Now think of all the statistics that we have been getting preached at us for years about the visual influence on children--why, they have even put regulations on the media over this. Why would we destroy all that work in one election? Why would we undermine what we already did? THINK OF THE CHILDREN, but think of them logically, rationally and with foresight.
Vote NO!!!!
March 17, 2009 at 8:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
"HAVE YOU EVER wondered why there is not a cigarette perfume scent? Perhaps it is because it stinks! "
Health issue, eh, Linda?
Vote "NO" on April 7.
March 18, 2009 at 1:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
HAVE YOU EVER wondered why there is not a skunk perfume scent? Perhaps it is because it stinks! If the skunk supporters enjoy that smell, they can wear it but they do not have the right to share it. They talk about rights. What about my right to skunk free air? I got their message. You do not have to listen to their claims if you do not like the smell of skunk.
The truth continues to surface, it's not about health, it's all about not wearing the same kind of stink cover up.
March 18, 2009 at 1:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
I empathize and relate to your comments, Linda, but I strongly disagree. I am a smoker and have no problem with the current smoking ban policy in effect in Emporia. I agree with smoking being barred from public buildings, schools, offices, retail stores, 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, fear mongering, 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, Linda? 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, jobs, 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. 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 county, and the state, including your car and 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. Some day you may have to stand ten feet from the front door to eat a Big Mac!
This smoking ban isn't about health, Linda. 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. Once opened, it can never again be closed.
Vote "NO" on April 7.
March 18, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )