HenryVIII (anonymous) says...

I asked ol' Steve if firearms were ever proven to be dangerous in his bar. He indicated they hadn't, yet he agreed they would still be dangerous... So somehow, toxic smoke that is known to be dangerous isn't dangerous in his bar where the smoke obviously exists simply because it hasn't been proven IN HIS BAR. Why does he think firearms would be dangerous IN HIS BAR? After all, it hasn't been proven, right? There is NO logic in their argument.

March 19, 2009 at 1:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

Misleading like the green signs that say second hand smoke kills...
I challenge anybody on this planet to verify that statement. Name one person whos death was directly attributed to SHS.

Misleading like the claim that this is a health issue, which usually comes across in a sentence, and is immediately followed by complaints about the smell and preference issues.

Misleading like countless studies and "facts" that contradict each other, to say the least, about the effects of SHS.

Misleading like the statement, I have a right to breathe clean air, as a semi, or city bus drives by putting out visible emmissions even on warm days.

There are alot of misleading things in this debate, but as for the ad in the paper, it was not at all misleading. They have never found toxic levels of second hand smoke. The fact that they have never tested in no way makes that statement any less true. As a matter of fact it clears up the fact that this is not about anyone's health. If it were the ban proponents would be willing to test the air and go to the business owner with proof that their business practices are harming others.

but I think we all know that they won't lower themselves to meeting and discussing anything with a bunch of lowly tavern owners.

March 19, 2009 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

J. Koch

We will stand behind that ad. There is NOTHING in it that is not 100% factual.

The EPA & OSHA have not done studies in any bar or restaurant in Emporia Kansas. Therefore NO-ONE can say that 2nd hand smoke in EMPORIA is a killer, or even that there is no safe exposure to 2nd hand smoke.

Why not call on CHE to PROVE the air is toxic or unsafe in any Bar or Restaurant in Emporia, Kansas? After all they have all the tax exempt money from the foundations.

Steve

March 19, 2009 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

madpoet (anonymous) says...

You can't prove a negative. At least that is what all my science teachers taught me. So you can't prove that something does NOT cause harm. I agree the ad was poorly worded but considering all the PSAs their opposition is flooding the airways with, I don't blame them for printing an ad in the paper. I am allergic to smoke so can say from personal experience that smoke can trigger allergy or asthma attacks in some people. I don't go in places where there will lots of smoke for that reason. I would be in favor of "smoking allowed" signs on doors to avoid surprises. I don't support the ban since it is too invasive. And I'm not a very paranoid person but a comment that the CAE spokesperson made on KVOE the other day got my attention. She said that we have good water quality in Emporia and thought better air quality was "the next step." The next step to what? Her own vision of paradise on Earth? That right there made me really nervous. They apparently do have another agenda waiting in the wings. At least, that was the impression I got from the interview.

March 19, 2009 at 3:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

madpoet ;

You bet your life they have another agenda or two waiting in the wings and the CAE agenda, strategy handbook as much as says what the next smoking ban and agenda will be.
VOTE NO !

March 19, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

FINALLY got my laptop fixed!

Now, the meat and potatoes...

You want to talk about lies and half-truths?

How about the humdinger that EOB is funded by big tobacco? I can 110% guarantee you that no money used by EOB has come from outside of lyon county, and no money used by EOB is tax dollars. CAE, where you at on this one?

March 19, 2009 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

Welcome back Matt, get too much sand in it?

March 19, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

What does that mean?
Jeremy T. Mitchelle-Koch, Special to the Gazette
Thursday, March 19, 2009

What does ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that mean? Is this a reporter working for the Gazette?

March 19, 2009 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

No, actually the power cord had frayed so much that it started sparking. Went to The Help Desk, and they helped me...at their desk... It's been a weird week. Anyways, back up and running!

March 19, 2009 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

I don't understand this entire smoking ban war of words or, for that matter, the smoking ban its self.

You see, we already have an effective smoking ban in Emporia; have had for decades. Smoking is banned in all public buildings, retail stores, government buildings, elevators, schools, public access offices, stadiums and arenas. To call this a smoking ban is confusing since smoking is already banned in our city... for the most part.

And therein lies the real issue. To be more accurate, the proposed ban is a bar and private club smoking rights ban. 90% of the restaurants in Emporia already ban smoking so anti-smokers have no problem there. The vast majority of eateries are smoke-free and the few that are not give you the option of eating there or going elsewhere. So that leaves just bars and private clubs, like the VFW.

That being the case, the proposed smoking ban is much like the Salem witch hunt: we are attempting to destroy something that does not exist. We are at war with an enemy created in someone's mind and then spread throughout the land by a few noisy followers who incite fear and scream of impending doom. Reminds me of a book I once read about a funny guy battling windmills.

Call it what it is: an organized attack on the rights of business owners and honest adults who have chosen to use tobacco, a legal product, by a small group of self-serving elitists with a personal agenda. The smoking ban advocates cite medical facts that don't exist or quote vague statistics taken from context. They claim we need the ban to "protect our children", who shouldn't be in bars and private clubs in the first place. Where are these people and their children being exposed to all this toxic smoke? It is banned everywhere but in bars and five or six restaurants, so I think I smell an odor of deceit, or a hidden agenda.

The current smoking ban was working just fine before CAE drew their swords of rightousness and began attacking windmills, and it works just fine now. Only bars and a handful of restaurants currently allow smoking, so anyone, adults or children, should have no problem avoiding the alleged toxins in second-hand smoke.

This ban issue is about choice, freedom to choose, and keeping the dysfunctional government out of our personal lives and decision-making process. It is about allowing small business owners to control their own destiny, tolerance and common sense, and one segment of the population attempting to force it's values and preferences on another. It's about basic rights.

What it is NOT about is health. The health issue is a smoke screen (pardon the pun).

Don't divide Emporia into social classes. Don't force your friends and neighbors to the level of second-class citizens and criminals. Don't reduce business, tax revenues, jobs, and tourism in a period of time we can least afford it.

Emporia should be a city serving the masses, not controlled by a few pompous a$$es.

Vote "NO" on April 7. It only makes sense.

March 19, 2009 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

This sounds rather similar to the smoking ban, same motives, same end result.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090319/a...

March 19, 2009 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

HenryVIII;

Just like the anti's, spewing a 1/2 truth in the paper no less.
Nowhere in my reply to ol enry's rambling about guns did I mention guns:

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
And still I know there is no arguing with you, you are wasting my time!
Steve

March 19, 2009 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

Crackinsack--
The woman died of asthma, and it could have been triggered by anything. Cologne, physical stress, etc. This was adequately covered in the comment section of the article. Its like saying that if you die surrounded by your family, they must have killed you!

You said, "Just because a lot of people dislike smoke or don't "prefer" to be around it doesn't make it any healthier. Is it ok to believe SHS is a health issue AND smelly?"

It is perfectly fine to believe that, my problem is that those same folks have a hard time substantiating the health claim and will spend most of the conversation telling you why they don't like it. If you are going to ban something your reasons and evidence need to be above reproach. This health claim and ban are premature at best given the data available and tyrannical at worst.

March 19, 2009 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Let's see 3,000 die a year or is it 30,000 die a year due to shs? Name 1 we ask & ole cracky comes up with 1.

After weeks of searching she finds the factual article of a girl dying of a asthma attack. A doctor says it was attributed to 2nd hand smoke, but_____He declined to identify the woman, the bar or the town because of a confidentiality agreement with the victim's family.
Could this doctor perhaps be working on a grant from the Robert Woods Foundation?

Even if he isn't, cracky, name 3 more out of the thousands supposed deaths caused by shs. That should keep you busy until after the election.

March 19, 2009 at 4:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Folks, first of all I offer my sympathies to the poor girls family for their loss !
However I can tell you, I have suffered with asthma for the last 20+ years. And in my case it is only one of a group of lung and respiratory diseases known as COPD . I can also tell you that Asthma is a cruel and unpredictable mistress. With Asthma you really don't know what will trigger an attack that just may be deadly and there is absolutely know way of knowing what the trigger is or will be or has been. I know this from experience, it may be perfume, animal dander, dandruff,dust, dust mites, scented detergents, unscented detergents, bleach, gasoline fumes and yes even smoke, all kinds of smoke, in other words anything and everything could trigger an attack and from my experience it may not be the same thing everytime. So what I am saying is I don't see how anyones death from an Asthma attack could be absolutely contributed to any one thing.
All I can say is that I have been out and about and returned home and had to use my rescue inhaler almost the istant I returned home to ward off an Asthma attack and I have no idea what triggered the attack, whether it was something at home, which I am very careful about, or something I may have come in contact with an hour, 4 hours or 5 minutes earlier, my personal experience has been that an Asthma attack doesn't always occur at the istant of exposure to a trigger, I guess it all depends on what the trigger is and how sensitive your particular asthma is to that trigger. Also let me say I am no doctor, however I have 20+ years of living with Asthma and other lung diseases called COPD .

March 19, 2009 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

P. S. I would also like to add that since I was diagnosed as having COPD, I have tried to educate myself with all the information I could find on the different diseases that make up the group called COPD, as to what to avoid, what may cause a worsining of the conditions, etc. so I do know a little about it !

March 19, 2009 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Happiness09 (anonymous) says...

crack: I beg to differ with you about the cause of death in this article, BUT.... the girl died from having an asthma attack which was triggered by the secondhand smoke (or so they think). She did not die directly from the secondhand smoke. A lot of different things can trigger an asthma attack. Cold weather, exercise, allergies, ect. can all be triggers. She could have just as well died from any of these as well.

March 19, 2009 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

The worst allergic reaction I've ever had was to the nicotine patch when I tried to quit smoking.

March 19, 2009 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

Jeremy T. Mitchell-Koch states in his letter to the editor, "That is an interesting claim made by the group, and it leads me to one of two conclusions: (1) The cigarettes smoked in Emporia somehow do not emit benzene, formaldehyde and other carcinogenic compounds. I find this tough to believe. What is it about cigarettes in our town that makes them and their second-hand smoke non-toxic?"

I think perhaps Jeremy might want to consider a remedial class in reading comprehension. The Emporia Open For Businees ad said, "OSHA & the EPA have not found any toxic levels of second hand smoke in any bar or restaurant in Emporia"

As I'm sure Jeremy is well aware, OSHA sets levels of exposure to those nasty carcinogenic compounds that are considered safe. As has been repeatedly stated, it is not likely that those Permissible Levels Of Exposure (PELs) have ever been exceeded in any establishment in Emporia.

Go back and read again, Jeremy, "OSHA and EPA have not found any TOXIC LEVELS of 2nd hand smoke...."

Seems to me the only ones being dishonest or deceitful, are those who support the ban.

Telling lies (yes, lies) such as 2nd hand smoke kills, or that someone is being harmed by exposure to 2nd hand smoke, or that the air in any establishment in Emporia is unhealthy without offering one shred of evidence to support those claims is dishonest and deceitful.

Spin it any way you want, making false statements is lying.

March 19, 2009 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

When someone says that they want to hangout at bars and drink alcohol they are not concerned about their health PERIOD! They really want this ban because they don't like the smell of shs PERIOD! You can't be so concerned about your health and drink alcohol PERIOD! The propaganda minister of the CAE posted some "health" information on these forums that stated that alcohol consumption was more unhealthy than shs. If someone is so concerned about their health why would they choose to do something that is more dangerous than the thing they want banned because it's unhealthy?

March 19, 2009 at 6:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Yes, I am aware the surgeon general says that SHS is bad for you. The last surgeon general said that SHS is bad for you. The last surgeon general also said that waterboarding poses no significant health hazards.

All you ban supporters, I offer this compromise.

You force me to breathe SHS for two hours at Town Royal (Don't throw me in the briar patch, Brer Bear!), and I get to waterboard you. Let's see what everyone's opinion of the Surgeon General is after both of these experiments.

March 19, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hottopics (anonymous) says...

I don't know about the rest of you but this whole smoking ban from 'self rightous know whats best for me people' is getting OLD!!!!!!!!
I wish they would spend the same amount of time and energy into something that would help our community not hurt it.
I am all for a good cause as much as the other citizens, but this just doesn't seem to be it. Not in my list of importance anyways.

March 19, 2009 at 8:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Here's hoping they push so hard, they push themselves right out of favor with a lot of citizens who would have voted yes for convenience, but decide to vote no out of irritation.

rbow (Steve)
Your old buddy Scott Olson sends personal regards to you and best wishes for EOB. He watches all this, but refrains from commenting since he doesn't live here anymore. Anyway, he is hoping that truth and fairness prevail and says to keep up the good work!

March 19, 2009 at 8:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

josie's - Welcome back and thank you for your service to our country!

That last post has to be one of the best ones in a long time. Tell you what, I'll join you in Steve's toxic bar for that 2 hours. I'll even buy the beer. Then, I'll supervise that waterboarding. That sounds like a fair compromise you are proposing. :)

March 19, 2009 at 9:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Just a thought for all of you touting the health issue!

You have all said it, we endure health regulations on serving food at certain temps, labeling of food containers, hand sanitation, restroom cleanliness, rodent and insect control, water temperatures, mold control, cooking and server cleanliness, heck we even have to have self-closing trash containers outside to prevent health issues to our customers. This is all done by the state and county to protect the consumers. Why then in the over thirty years I have been in business has my business never been checked by the state or county for shs? If shs is truly a health issue, wouldn't we be inspected on it?
Could it be, it's not a proven fact?
Steve

March 19, 2009 at 9:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

pingeon and josies:

It sounds like "SURFS UP AT THE TOWN ROYAL"
steve

March 19, 2009 at 9:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

What does that mean, "Special to the Gazette"??

I sent a well-written, literate editorial comment to the Gazette opposing the smoking ban. Mr. Kelley quickly sent me back an email saying my article was too long to print.

How do I earn "Special to The Gazette" status so I can get my opinions published?

March 19, 2009 at 10:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Well come on Crack, or Irish, Herr Goebbels, or any other supporters. The last surgeon general stated that waterboarding poses no significant health hazards. You all seem to believe what he says is gospel, so how bout it...

Who's first up to the ole board?

March 19, 2009 at 11:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I think Special to the Gazette means EOB will get equal space to reply to this special to the
gazette. Is that what it means patrick & Gwen?
Steve

March 20, 2009 at 6:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

glarson (anonymous) says...

Steve,

Special to The Gazette was a misnomer applied by the department that loads to the Web site. Letters to the editor are not "Special to The Gazette."

When you see it in the print edition, it means someone other than Gazette staff has written the article... maybe Nancy Horst at Emporia's school district, tech college staff, etc.

Gwen Larson

March 20, 2009 at 7:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

I don't see why people aren't against banning anything. Talk about the most extreme and intrusive way to change a social norm or paradigm. Americans have stood against oppression and tyranny on behalf of people in other countries when they couldn't do it for themselves, since there has been Americans. It is sad that some of us are unwilling to do it for ourselves.

March 20, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

I agree on slavery Crack!

Something as extreme and destructive was begging to be abolished, hate to split hairs but in my mind it is not quite the same as a ban, abolishment I mean.

But is this such an extreme thing that we need to take the most extreme measure provided by law?

Maybe and I mean maybe (as to avoid putting myself on the same slippery slope I am trying to avoid) if non-smokers were becoming addicted to nicotine by shs, I might believe there was something to the argument about the ill effects of second hand smoke. Probably not, but maybe. I mean it still comes down to your choice to be exposed. As it stands now it is just not proven that shs is as harmful as the surgeon general and the pharm. complex would have us believe.

March 20, 2009 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kittenslvsu (anonymous) says...

Vote NO enough said

March 20, 2009 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Am I seeing things or reading something into a post by crack. I believe that crack just agreed that SHS has not ever been proven to be the direct cause of a death.
The post by crack that I am referring to is a recent one, this one to be exact ( crackinsack (anonymous) on March 20, 2009 at 8:24 a.m.)
Hapiness09,
"She did not die directly from the secondhand smoke".
Exactly. This is why it's hard to identify deaths from SHS. When a person dies from lung cancer, they don't die "directly from the secondhand smoke" either. I don't think anybody is saying you'll always die immediately from SHS exposure. It's clear, however, that SHS causes life threatening conditions. The smoking ban will prevent sudden complications (like the asthma attack) as well as long term complications that can lead to death. With something as senseless as SHS, I don’t see why people are against banning it.

Tell me am I reading something into this post by crack that I shouldn't be ?

And crack, people are against this ban because it is a form of control over certain aspects of peoples lives by other people who do not have the right to do so, even with the help of the government, because that is a violation of a persons civil liberties. And if you read and understand the following you will understand comcept of civil liberties.

Civil liberties are freedoms that protect the individual from the government. Civil liberties set limits for government so that it cannot abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens.
Democratic Republics such as the United States have a Constitution, a bill of rights and similar constitutional documents that enumerate and seek to guarantee civil liberties.

So if understand the concept of civil liberties. You will understand that the government does not have the right to interfere in a citizens life or lives, even if a group of citizens asks or demands government or governing body to on behalf of an individual or group of individuals.

VOTE NO !

March 20, 2009 at 5:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

Also crack, this ban is not totally unlike the ban that required people of color to use certain bathrooms, water fountains, sit in the back of the bus, etc.. This ban also targets certain people or segment of the population, only because they smoke and for no other reason !
Not because of religion or skin color, but targets a certain people or group of people just the same and is forcing them to do something that is unnecessary and against their civil liberties and personal rights, just the same and also targets not only individuals, but businesses and business owners also. But I guess the smoking ban advocates just can't, won't or refuse to comprehend the similarity !

March 20, 2009 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

USNretired (anonymous) says...

Dr. JMK, I expect a Chemistry Professor knows exactly what he is talking about when it comes to chemicals and I won't argue your points. I haven't smoked since 79 and I despise the smell, BUT, I will vote against the ban on the basis that people should have more rights than Governments can take away. We are a FREE people.

March 20, 2009 at 7:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Long ago, we (this forum) established that no one dies directly from SHS. We did note that SHS is a direct cause of lung cancer, heart disease, etc.

Remember standing in the middle of the highway is not a direct cause of deaths. Getting hit by a car, while standing in the middle of the highway, can get you killed.

Meth: Considering your logic, are you seriously trying to convince us that it is OK to stand in the middle of the highway because it is not a direct cause of death? That it is OK to breath in SHS because it is not a direct cause of death?

Really?

March 20, 2009 at 8:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

more lies from 1sgt:
Long ago, we (this forum) established that no one dies directly from SHS. We did note that SHS is a direct cause of lung cancer, heart disease, etc.

"we did note" who are you talking about? do you have a turd in your pocket? I didn't agree or note anything like that>
Steve

March 20, 2009 at 9:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Just a thought for all of you touting the health issue!

You have all said it, we endure health regulations on serving food at certain temps, labeling of food containers, hand sanitation, restroom cleanliness, rodent and insect control, water temperatures, mold control, cooking and server cleanliness, heck we even have to have self-closing trash containers outside to prevent health issues to our customers. This is all done by the state and county to protect the consumers. Why then in the over thirty years I have been in business has my business never been checked by the state or county for shs? If shs is truly a health issue, wouldn't we be inspected on it?
Could it be, it's not a proven fact?
Steve

March 20, 2009 at 9:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Corbin: Be careful what you wish for.

March 20, 2009 at 11:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

1st - He's been saying that for a while and you now decide to call him out on it? What gives?

March 21, 2009 at 12:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lsgt_retired (anonymous) says...

VOTE Early!

Vote NO!

March 21, 2009 at 1:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Tell you what, Meth, Rbow, et. al: There is not much point to name calling, questioning sexual preference or forging someone's user name.

From now on, you can take on the role of personal attacker. I don't see the point, and refuse to participate anymore. My apologies to anyone and everyone whom I have insulted.

From now on, I'll post what I believe to be relevant information regarding SHS. The rest is a waste of time.

Feel free to attack my posts, feel free to attack me, feel free to attack my service. I've faced much tougher crowds than this.

March 21, 2009 at 7:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

AGAIN BOTH SIDES;

STOP HIGHJACKING USERNAMES!

CORBIN

March 21, 2009 at 8:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

1sgt;

O.K. I will try to be civil also, sometimes it's hard when you're arguing. You & Others have brought up the health issue that is why I would like you to answer my above post. I'm not wishing for an air quality test from the dept. of health.
But as a business owner that buys a health license every year, I submitt my property to all kinds of tests from fire dept.
building code enforcement, and the state health dept. We are over inspected as far as I am concerned. That said:
If shs was the health issue as it is touted by the pro-ban people, why is it not being tested by the appropriate agency.
If they did test for it and found levels of shs above the maximum allowed by OSHA, I have already stated that I would go non-smoking immediately. The reason the state doesn't test for it is because it is NOT a bonified health issue.
Your thoughts?

March 21, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Gwen Larson:

Just a note, Karen has probably asked you to pull my user account, it sure would make her job easier. Just kidding, I really like the lady.

Maybe the above post would be a good question to pose to the State dept. of Health & Human Services? Why don't they check for levels of shs in businesses that have a health permit?

A good question to ask BEFORE the Election.
Steve Corbin

March 21, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

posted by 1sgt-retired

Posted on February 18 at 10 p.m.

"What a bunch of Nancys.

While two of the commissioners had the brass to stand up to the local business thugs who only care about lining their pockets with silver, the other three couldn't stick by a decision if it was rammed up their bums by the Devil himself. Thank God my Corps isn't run that way or we'd all be speaking German."

On Smoking ban postponement

Sure looks like name calling to me. Looks like a case of dish it out but not take it to me.

March 21, 2009 at 8:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Her is another gem from 1sgt_retired. With a little taking the Lords name in vain thrown in for good measure. At least he called me buddy I guess.

Posted on February 18 at 10:10 p.m.

"Buddy, I am a veteran who fought hard to keep America safe. By God, I don't want some greedy son of a... let those who gave the ultimate be diminished."

On Smoking ban postponement

March 21, 2009 at 8:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Posted on February 18 at 10:20 p.m.
Here 1sgt_retired is questioning my military service and wrongfully assuming I'm a smoker.

"You may be a veteran, although I seriously doubt that, but I bet you have no idea what it's like to put your life on the line for your country. You talk about smoking like it is some kinda freedom. It ain't, buddy. It is a privilege, just like driving your Ford down the street. Freedom is the right to NOT breath the same crap that you put in your lungs. If you wanna commit suicide, do it in your own home so the rest of us don't have to smell your stink."

On Smoking ban postponement

I guess he's had a chenge of heart. We'll see how long it lasts.

March 21, 2009 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Not to drink gasoline just to pee on your fire, but the abbreviation for First Sergeant is 1SG, not 1sgt.

March 21, 2009 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )