More than 30 “Vote No” signs were stolen in central and northwest Emporia over the weekend and a reward will be posted for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the responsible party.
The signs urge Emporians to vote against the citywide public-smoking ban in the April 7 city and school board election.
Steve Corbin of Town Royal, who placed many of the signs, said they cost just under $5 each. He said this morning that as of Saturday evening, 29 “Vote No” signs were reported stolen. Another count on Sunday yielded several more, placing the number at more than 30 signs.
Corbin said he will post a $500 reward in the name of Emporia Open for Business — the organization campaigning against the smoking ban — through Crime Stoppers. He said this morning he was in the process of calling Lyon County Crime Stoppers to get the reward in place.
If you have any information regarding these or any other crimes call Lyon County Crime Stoppers at 342-2273 or the Emporia Police Department at 343-4200. Tips can be texted via cell phone to 274637. At the beginning of the message type TIP370 and then the message. TIP370 must be at the beginning of the message or it won’t get to Emporia law enforcement. Tips also can be submitted at tipsubmit.com. Follow the directions given online.
gemini (anonymous) says...
The door swings both ways...my "Vote YES" sign has been vandalized TWICE since I put it up last week. It's sad that people just can't respect the opinions of others.
March 23, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
history_nerd (anonymous) says...
Yeah, stealing signs really helps our cause, people.
March 23, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
It's more sad that people can't respect the law, especially people that are trying to make new laws.
Vote NO please. Thank you.
March 23, 2009 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dido1969 (anonymous) says...
The only thing that surprises me is that it took this long. What some people can't buy (in this case, an election) they will resort to stealing.
March 23, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bobhornet (anonymous) says...
I'm not surprised, given the strongarm, police state, totalitarian tactics of the anti-smokers.
March 23, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
While the vote-no signs that were stolen were on private property, (you know where the person pays taxes on the property they own,) the only vote yes signs I have seen vandalized were on public right of ways and rental properties or properties listed FOR SALE by a certain real estate company, including a couple of vacant houses. I wonder if the out of town owners know about their property being used for political use? I'd hate to be an agent at that office, in this market, having to deal with a possible boycott from anti-ban people.
That all said BOTH SIDES LET YOUR FEELINGS KNOWN AT THE POLLS.
VOTE NOW
VOTE NO!
And leave the signs alone.
STEVE CORBIN
March 23, 2009 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Stealing anti-smoking ban signs? Sounds to me as if some sneaky, under-handed, end-justifies-the-means group of nicotine narcs is beginning to panic and resort to pathetic (and illegal) acts of desperation.
Just more proof of the type of individuals behind the intrusive and discriminatory proposed smoking ban.
Vote "NO" on April 7.
March 23, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EsqEB (anonymous) says...
Anyone ever notice if you go to the Clean Air Emporia's website and look through the contact list, the only person who has a non-government job is Mr. Sauder. All the rest of them are essentially leeches on society. Maybe not the teachers, but it's odd none of them are actually out trying to make it in society. They just sit back and tell the workers/proletarians how to live and what is best for them.
March 23, 2009 at 4:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
The theft of signs is ridiculous. Laying blame without proof is even worse.
My "Vote Yes" sign disappeared from my yard about two days after it was put up. I hope it has found a good home, but I'm not optimistic.
March 23, 2009 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
irishemporia said, "The theft of signs is ridiculous."
Almost as ridiculous as the ban itself.
He also said, "Laying blame without proof is even worse."
Almost as bad as saying the air in someone's business is unhealthy or harming someone without proof of such claims.
Almost...but not quite.
March 23, 2009 at 5:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pencilguy (anonymous) says...
are you kidding me Mister O?! I don't blame you, though, smoke has probably had effects on people like you who think smoking shouldn't be banned. IT'S BAD FOR YOU AND THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU! You should also be able to go rob people of their homes, money, cars, etc. I mean, there's no scientific proof that this really hurts them, right? At least not in health. There is proof how smoking can cause cancer, i mean look at the side of any box of them! If smoke can be harmful to you, why isn't it to us.?
March 23, 2009 at 6:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
And if a warning label is sufficient on a pack of smokes, a parachute or anything else that is much more dangerous and proven to be, so as not to require a law, then a sign of information should be adequate to do the same thing for a smoking allowed building. The owners were willing, but three commissioners and the CAE refused.
March 23, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
It may be a first, but I agee with crackinsack. By trespassing and taking something from a person's yard, you are causing anxiety to the owner. To take political signs is so childish! I can't wait until April 7th is behind us!
March 23, 2009 at 6:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"There is proof how smoking can cause cancer, i mean look at the side of any box of them! If smoke can be harmful to you, why isn't it to us.?"
It is less harmful because it is mixed with air. That should be pretty easy to understand. If you don't understand that and you still think that smoking and shs = the same thing then I would tell you to simply avoid it. The current pre-ban laws and the free market are making and have made it very easy to avoid. This ban undermines the free market and we really don't need that in our fragile economy.
Vote NO please. Thank you.
March 23, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
pencilguy posted, "are you kidding me Mister O?! I don't blame you, though, smoke has probably had effects on people like you who think smoking shouldn't be banned. IT'S BAD FOR YOU AND THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU! You should also be able to go rob people of their homes, money, cars, etc. I mean, there's no scientific proof that this really hurts them, right? At least not in health. There is proof how smoking can cause cancer, i mean look at the side of any box of them! If smoke can be harmful to you, why isn't it to us.?"
Hey pencil dude....didn't you get the memo? The ban isn't about the health effects of smoking, or smoking causing cancer.
Some say it's supposed to be about the health effects of exposure to 2nd hand smoke. You know...the activity that the computer program says kills 3000 people every year but doesn't leave any bodies?
Of course, many of us know it's not about a health issue, which is why we keep asking for proof that the air in any business violates OSHA's permissible (safe) levels of exposure.
Typical ban supporter - doesn't seem to notice there's a difference between smoking and 2nd hand smoke exposure and can't even keep the issues straight.
March 23, 2009 at 7:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coldhardtruth (anonymous) says...
I believe that it is the choice of the non-smoker to breathe clean air as well. With the smoking ban this is possible. There is no sense in having a smoking and non-smoking section if it is only divided by half of a wall. If people who smoke are too lazy to walk outside to smoke to save someone's life, then I don't know what the world has come to. Also if smoking is banned from indoors, maybe people will stop/decrease their smoking habits. Please help save lives and VOTE YES!
March 23, 2009 at 7:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"I believe that it is the choice of the non-smoker to breathe clean air as well. With the smoking ban this is possible. "
It is the choice of the non-smoker(like myself) to breath clean air and I do so very easily under the current pre-ban laws. This is why the ban is not needed.
If you feel that shs will kill you then please avoid it. It is very easy to do.
Please vote NO. Thank you.
If you just want this ban to stick-it to the smokers, you are just sad.
March 23, 2009 at 8:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
coldhardtruth posted, "If people who smoke are too lazy to walk outside to smoke to save someone's life, then I don't know what the world has come to....Please help save lives"
Please tell me who's life is to be saved? Have you ever known anyone who died as a result of exposure to 2nd hand smoke? Have you ever known anyone who knew someone who knew someone who died as a result of exposure to 2nd hand smoke?
Neither have I.
And you would think that as long as people have been smoking inside businesses in Emporia, and as many people who have been exposed to that 2nd hand smoke, you'd think that *someone* would know someone who died of exposure to 2nd hand smoke.
So...the cold hard truth is that since nobody has died from exposure to 2nd hand smoke, the ban is not necessary.
It's not a health issue. It's a personal preference issue.
Stop the lies. Vote NO.
March 23, 2009 at 8:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
o.k. let's get the weather aspect out of this debate.
The vote no signs are heavy stock and guarenteed to 60mph winds plus. Sorry to say but the vote Yes signs are a whole lot cheaper. For someone to say that signs were "blown" away by the wind, how do you explain that in a 1 block area vote no signs dissapeared, while the vote yes signs remained. This is not wind, nor students, as a prank this is a direct attack on the freedoms of speech of Emporians by a few smoke hating zealots. It would be nice to hear Wed Words from Steve Sauder condemming these thefts, but we'll see.
Steve
March 23, 2009 at 9:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Don't forget the forum on kvoe today at 1:06 p.m.
Both sides on the radio to answer questions. The two from EOB are both non-smokers. They are allowing call-in questions.
Steve Corbin
EOB
March 24, 2009 at 8:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I'm, BAAAAAACK ! Been gone for a couple of days for lab work. Was sad to here that someone has seen fit to steal some of those beautiful yellow signs. I must agree that if the wind is the culprit, Mr. Wind is very selective in his actions, HA !, wind my foot. My wonderful yellow sign is still standing despite ( MR. WIND ) .
A forum on KVOE ? I may be wrong but isn't KVOE owned by one of the CAE members, or something like that and wouldn't that be like hiring a fox to guard the hen-house !
The two representitives for those who oppose the ban, may be in for a rough time, especially from call in questioners. I don't know who arranged this, but I would be very wary of some sort of " set up " for a good bashing of the all those opposing the ban. I mean, you have all seen what happens on here when anyone opposes the smoking ban. So I hope the two ban opponents who will appear, will be and are prepared for an all out assault by KVOE and ban supporters, with loaded questions.
March 24, 2009 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I will ask again.
Why do all of you who believe that SHS is so deadly and hazardous to anyone, especially you personally, go out of your way to frequent establishments that allow smoking/shs, especially when there are so many more places that do not allow smoking and are smoke/shs free ?
March 24, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
MisterO--
Did you know that people who "die" of AIDS don't actually die of AIDS? They die of the diseases that AIDS made them vulnerable to. They estimate that 2-3 million people die each year from AIDS related complications but very few actually die from AIDS....should we not try to do everything possible to eliminate AIDS?
March 24, 2009 at 11:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
methusla
I'm glad you're back, I was starting to get worried about you.
March 24, 2009 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Did you know that in this country it is very easy to avoid getting AIDS. It is also very easy to avoid shs. Infact there is alot more regulation on smoking than there is on the #1 way that HIV is transmitted in this country. Wonder why that is? Ban advocates are so selective in the things in which they choose to ban.
There was a case not to long ago in which a man with HIV came to Emporia and "exposed" some local college students to it. So it actually does affect others. Yet there are no restrictions on that type of behavior while tobacco is regulated and taxed like crazy.
March 24, 2009 at 11:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
methusla, no set up on the forum;
Ron Thomas and the gang have been very unbiased in their reporting on this. The staff at the radio station are just like my staff. They can't help it if their boss is a d--ckhead :>)
Anyway, give it a listen, I think our side is well represented.
Steve
March 24, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
The point is that their are regulations on tobacco that limit it to such a small number of places that it is in fact an individuals activity(going to a smoking allowed establishment) that exposes them to shs. The only people that don't voluntarily get exposed are the children living with smokers. This ban doesn't cover that. The next one might or maybe the next one after that but not this one. Any way shs at 20ft. is so diluted by all the air in between you and the source that it's probably no worse than breathing exhaust fumes from a car while walking down the side walk.
March 24, 2009 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Well, I said earlier that we had video on some signs, and 1 of those was hit last night. Could have been the wind but the video is being checked now to see. I sure hope it was the wind, but the camera never lies. I'll let you know what we find out.
Steve
March 24, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
seriously--
I was just trying to make an analogy of how stupid the arguement that no one dies of SHS is. Very few people die of SHS and very few people die of AIDS, but a lot of people die of complications that can be attributed to both of those.
SHS is something that can be easily removed from places the public goes. All that is being asked is that the smoker take their smoke outside so that they eliminate the possibility of harming others with THEIR smoke. If the smoking ban only helps save one life, isn't it worth it?
March 24, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crack;
Are you trying to tell us that when you knowingly and personally walk into a smoking allowed business that you are not on purpose being personally involved in exposing yourself to an environment you personally believe to be detrimental to your health that you are not being personal about your personal actions ? Exactly who is forcing you to personally enter such a place or businesses anyway ?
Is it your friends, relatives, the smokers themselves, an unnecessary City Ordinance that says you must enter a smoking allowed businesses or be around smoking/SHS ?
VOTE NO !
March 24, 2009 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
I think it is ashame that the "Vote No" signs are being stolen but I hope you don't think that only those signs are being stolen. It is 2 sided. I personally know of some who have had their "Vote Yes" signs stolen as well.
March 24, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I know that, both sides have had signs taken.
I have also said on here it does not matter which "side" you are on, respect the others right to their opinions and leave the darn signs alone. Make your posistion know at the ballot box.
Steve
VOTE EARLY
VOTE NO
CHOOSE WHERE YOU GO
March 24, 2009 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
SILVER,
Do you go out on the town on a regular basis?
Do you have a drink once in a while?
The Noose has been smoke free for almost a month now.
Have you shown them your support?
March 24, 2009 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Haha, Hey Steve, I bet I can answer those questions for slvr.
My guess is the answer to all three is no. I can't wait to hear the debate! Remember, KVOE at 1:06!
March 24, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I find it absolutely hilarious that when a ban opponent tries to use an analogy it gets shot down as an apples to oranges comparison but apparently the ban proponents can make all the analogies they want. Oh brother!
March 24, 2009 at 12:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I said I would let you know, it WAS the Wind! I hoped it was, because I just don't understand why people would want to stifle public debate. So in this 1 case of a sign disapearing, NO HARM, NO FOUL.
steve
March 24, 2009 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
No, I have not been to the Noose yet. I don't go out very often but when I do, I have a couple of favorite spots. I know the owner of one very well so I frequent there when I do go out.
I am not sure why you asked if I go out of town on a regular basis.
seriously--
I don't think that was an apples to oranges analogy. Explain to me why you seem to think it is.
March 24, 2009 at 1:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
You were up late last night, Matt. What did you mean by your last post:
fgsi4ymrlkf fh28470LVG*#O)&EQYNYTBLKj)89Vg5V mjjjZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz?
March 24, 2009 at 1:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Is that some kind of code, or did you fall asleep on your keyboard?
March 24, 2009 at 1:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
slvr: I think I asked; out ON the town.
My point is: ask S.C. on the radio right now, How his business has been since he went non-smoking? 342-1400
March 24, 2009 at 1:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
slvrncrck
I don't feel that my analogies have been apples to oranges either. I never said yours was. I simply used your analogy to make a point and you didn't get it. My point was that both things are easily avoidable and that most of the people exposed to either do so voluntarily. There are cases where it isn't voluntary like kids living with smokers but this ban doesn't even cover homes. The next ban or maybe the one after that or after that will probably cover privat residences but not this one.
March 24, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
That was my fault. I misread that.
seriously--
First off, the post was directed at MisterO not you and if you notice crack was the original responder to you.
In your response I took it as you were insinuating that my analogy was incorrect. I am glad to see you understand my point.
With some of your arguements I have given reasons as to why I think they are apples to oranges, and for some reason you don't understand why they are completely different arguements.
March 24, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
VOTE YES!!
March 24, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck posted, "I was just trying to make an analogy of how stupid the arguement that no one dies of SHS is. Very few people die of SHS and very few people die of AIDS, but a lot of people die of complications that can be attributed to both of those."
Stupid, huh? You wanna see stupid? Look at your analogy.
There is a very clear and medically proven correlation between HIV, AIDS, and the complications from AIDS. There is no such correlation between 2nd hand smoke and your theoretical complications.
Ask any doctor - "was this patient's death caused from complications directly attributed to HIV/AIDS?" Guess what his/her answer will be.
Ask any doctor - "was this patient's death caused from complications directly attributed by exposure to 2nd hand smoke?" Guess what his/her answer will be.
Stupid indeed.
slvrnblck continues, "SHS is something that can be easily removed from places the public goes. All that is being asked is that the smoker take their smoke outside so that they eliminate the possibility of harming others with THEIR smoke. If the smoking ban only helps save one life, isn't it worth it?"
2nd hand smoke can easily be avoided in private businesses. Walk in door, smell smoke, turn around and leave. Very easy for those who don't need the nanny squad to do their thinking for them.
March 24, 2009 at 3:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
MisterO--
If the smoking ban only helps save one life, isn't it worth it?
VOTE YES!
March 24, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck posted, "If the smoking ban only helps save one life, isn't it worth it?"
The loss of a liberty for a theoretical number? No. I'm sorry, but it's not worth it.
Despite repeated calls for some sort of proof or evidence, you and all of the other ban supporters have failed to show that anyone's life is endangered, that anyone's life will be saved, or that anyone is being harmed.
Prove your accusations. Have the air tested.
Vote NO.
March 24, 2009 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
MisterO--
Prove it's not.
We have given boat loads of evidence showing that SHS contains many known harmful carcinogens.
March 24, 2009 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Absolute (anonymous) says...
I agree. The default is clean air. The burden is NOT on clean air proponents to show that clean air is safer. The burden is on others to show that SHS is safe. I would like to see the research that shows SHS is safe.
March 24, 2009 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
roger (anonymous) says...
Some people are just busybodys that think they should be telling everyone else how to live. That's the main reason that as long as I have a choice about it I will not live in a city.
March 24, 2009 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck posted, "MisterO--
Prove it's not. We have given boat loads of evidence showing that SHS contains many known harmful carcinogens."
Easily.
You and others have given evidence that 2nd hand smoke contains carcinogens. Nobody disputes that.
However, OSHA - you know, the government agency responsible for protecting the health and safety of American workers? - Anyway, OSHA has set permissible levels of exposure for all of those carcinogens.
None of the businesses in Emporia, Kansas have levels of toxins that exceed those permissible levels of exposure. If they did, OSHA would intervene.
And by the way, you and Absolute are wrong - the burden of proof lies with those making the accusations.
March 24, 2009 at 5:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
MisterO;
It's good to see another American on here.
You know, America, where you are innocent UNTIL you are proven Guilty.
Steve
March 24, 2009 at 5:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck;
I have given boat loads of evidence that biomass smoke contains the same exact known carcinogens as tobacco product smoke and that the particulate matter in biomass smoke is even more harmful than SHS. And yet the smoking ban supporters refuse to even accept that evidence as valid on the basis that burining pastures, farmland, wood in fireplaces and other devices is necessary and serves a useful purpose ! Useful and necessary to who ? Those that do the act ? And who has the right to say that smoking a cigarette, etc. is not thought of as necessary and useful to the person who does the act or may be necessary or useful the businesses and business owner who allow smoking ? Can you, the CAE or any one of the ban smoking supportes, honestly and truthfully say, that if this smoking ban is passed, that a ban on smoking outdoors or in private homes and vehicles will absolutely not be the next ban imposed on the citizens of Emporia ?
I have also posted information from the ACS that SHS is one of several risk factors in getting lung cancer, and only one among several. And the ACS also goes on to state that even if you are exposed to a risk factor, that doesn't in itself mean that you will get cancer !
So it would seem to me that if you are concerned about health and getting cancer, etc.! Then you had better be prepaired to ban many things you may be exposed to that causes possible health problems !
March 24, 2009 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
You too, Steve.
It's pretty bad when people make accusations saying your business is harming someone or even killing someone without any proof what so ever to back up those ridiculous claims.
March 24, 2009 at 5:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
And, methusla....let's not forget the City of Emporia Water Quality Summary for 2009 that just came in the mail.
You all got one of those, didn't you?
Our drinking water contains:
Barium
Flouride
Slenium
Nitrate
Aluminum
Magnesium
Lead and copper.
Although our drinking water contains all of those chemicals (some of which are known carcinogens), the brochure says (and I quote), "The bottom like is that thew water provided to you is safe."
In the first column of the inside of the brochure, it lists a number of chemicals and states, (again, I quote):
"EPA sets standards for a number of chemical compounds that affect our health".
Among those chemicals that EPA has determined a a safe exposure level for:
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Sliver
Thalium
Whaddya know...some of those chemicals are the very same chemicals found in 2nd hand smoke.
So how do you guys resolve that?
Is it ok to have safe levels for our drinking water but not for 2nd hand smoke?
To paraphrase a number of posters and Letters To The Editor writers:
How is it that these chemicals become magically safe in our drinking water but they kill us in 2nd hand smoke?
March 24, 2009 at 5:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pencilguy (anonymous) says...
just like your "show me the bodies" show me the signs and then i will believe someone stole them. oh and mr. who you know why there is silence? because some people have better things to do than debate on the computer all day i check my posts once a day. if it's your choice to breath dirty air, shouldn't we have the choice to breath clean air? i agree with coldhardtruth. Also say some of your own posts, half of your posts are made out of quotes from us. you say for us too prove that smoking causes bad health, i dare you to prove it doesn't.
March 24, 2009 at 7:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pencilguy (anonymous) says...
mister o i realized you said only some of the chemicals. can you provide an entire list of chemicals in second hand smoke and that EPA has set a safe exposure level for? thank you
March 24, 2009 at 7:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
commonsenseemporia (anonymous) says...
On its website at:http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_iii/otm_iii_2.html#5
OSHA recommends that business owners, "Eliminate or reduce contamination of the air supply with cigarette smoke by banning smoking or restricting smoking to designated areas which have their air discharged directly to the outdoor rather than recirculated." (Section B, Part 2, Paragraph K)
In Section B, Part 12, OSHA also states, "Tobacco Smoke.
Sources: Cigars, cigarettes, pipe tobacco.
"Acute health effects: Tobacco smoke can irritate the respiratory system and, in allergic or asthmatic persons, often results in eye and nasal irritation, coughing, wheezing, sneezing, headache, and related sinus problems. People who wear contact lenses often complain of burning, itching, and tearing eyes when exposed to cigarette smoke. 6 Tobacco smoke is a major contributor to indoor air quality problems. Tobacco smoke contains several hundred toxic substances including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, formaldehyde, ammonia, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, tars, and nicotine. Most indoor air particulates are due to tobacco smoke and are in the respirable range."
OSHA also refers interested parties to the EPA report, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. In its summary, the EPA says SHS is "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults and impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of children."
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense
March 24, 2009 at 7:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
pencilguy
you said
"if it's your choice to breath dirty air, shouldn't we have the choice to breath clean air?"
YES! We nonsmokers do have a choice to breath clean air. I do it. It's easy to do with the current pre-ban laws that are in place. Any where anyone needs to go is smokefree. The vast majority of places that people might want to go are smokefree. The smoking allowed places are decreasing quickly. There really isn't a problem that warrants this kind of ban. Seriously!
Now we all have a choice, after the ban the smokers won't be able to smoke their smokes and make their jokes in a bar with their friends and business owners won't be able to provide a place to do so.
Since you are concerned about your health as I am simply stay away from it like I do. It's super easy! Problem solved. Next!
Vote NO please. Thank you.
Man, I am getting sick of pointing out the obvious.
March 24, 2009 at 8:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
pencilguy posted, "mister o i realized you said only some of the chemicals. can you provide an entire list of chemicals in second hand smoke and that EPA has set a safe exposure level for? thank you"
The EPA set the safe levels of exposure for drinking water (according to the brochure from the city of Emporia).
As far as Permissible Exposure Levels to other chemicals, that is typically done by OSHA. You can find a farily complete list of those chemicals here: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/pel/recognit...
As far as the complete list of chemicals in 2nd hand smoke, the cancer.gov website oddly enough does't list them all. It says:
[begin quote]
# Does secondhand smoke contain harmful chemicals?
Yes. Of the more than 4,000 chemicals that have been identified in secondhand tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful, and 50 of these are known to cause cancer. These chemicals include (1):
* arsenic (a heavy metal toxin)
* benzene (a chemical found in gasoline)
* beryllium (a toxic metal)
* cadmium (a metal used in batteries)
* chromium (a metallic element)
* ethylene oxide (a chemical used to sterilize medical devices)
* nickel (a metallic element)
* polonium–210 (a chemical element that gives off radiation)
* vinyl chloride (a toxic substance used in plastics manufacture)
[end quote]
I didn't see polonium-210 on the OSHA list, but every other chemical listed is on there. I'm sure you'd be able to find the complete list somewhere, though.
There's OSHA PEL list. When can we expect to see the air tested in some of the businesses in Emporia to find out if the air is really unhealthy or if the health issue is just a smokescreen for personal preference issue?
March 24, 2009 at 8:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
Sorry, I almost forgot to address this:
"if it's your choice to breath dirty air, shouldn't we have the choice to breath clean air?"
You DO have that choice. You have the choice not to enter the very few businesses that allow smoking. It's very easy to do.
If you feel an environment is unhealthy and might kill you, yet you refuse to exercise personal responsibility knowingly enter that environment, you have far greater issues and no ban in the world will cure that.
March 24, 2009 at 9:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
commonsenseemporia posted,
"On its website at:http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_iii/otm_iii_2.html#5"
"OSHA recommends..."
Yes, they recommend, but they don't require. Which they WOULD do if there were health issues.
"Tobacco smoke contains several hundred toxic substances including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, formaldehyde, ammonia, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, tars, and nicotine. Most indoor air particulates are due to tobacco smoke and are in the respirable range."
See previous post on permissible levels of exposure and see my above comment about what OSHA WOULD do if these contaminants exceeded those permissible levels.
"OSHA also refers interested parties to the EPA report, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking."
Refer to the Congressional Inquiry regarding that very EPA report here: http://www.pipes.org/Articles/Bliley....
And the results of a Federal law suit regarding the conclusions of chapters 1-6 of that report here: http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafra...
"In its summary, the EPA says SHS is "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults and impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of children."
A random number generated by a statistical analysis program that was invalidated by the Federal judge in the above court case.
Common sense indeed. I would expect most people who actually do have common sense could easily avoid exposing themselves to second hand smoke if they really felt it was a health issue.
March 24, 2009 at 9:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
absolute--
You are exactly right. Clean air is the default setting. If someone or something is emitting something into the air they should be the ones who either have to prove that it is safe or remove it from the air. Very simple concept that many don't understand.
March 24, 2009 at 9:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Under the current pre-ban laws shs is very easy to avoid. If you feel it will kill you and avoiding it will "save your life" then please avoid it. It's super easy right now to do so. "Very simple concept that many don't understand."
Can we avoid shs? Yes we can!
Vote NO please. Thank you.
signed
Bob the shs avoider
March 24, 2009 at 9:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
For some who may be interested. The following is a list of the chemicals released into the air thru fireplace chimneys, etc. when someone burns wood as a purposeful and necessery thing and the health effects of the wood smoke shs !
A list of wood smoke pollutants and health effects follows in part 2
March 24, 2009 at 10:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Part 2 wood smok/shs chemicals & health effects
Wood Smoke Pollutant
Health effect
Carbon Monoxide1 Poison: resulting change of oxyhemaglobin carboxyhemoglobin. Tissue hypoxia, cellular death, damages to the central nervous system, death. 14 Causes reproductive toxity.15 Reduces ability of blood to bring oxygen to body cells and tissues; cells and tissues need oxygen to work. May be particularly hazardous to people who have heart or circulatory (blood vessel) problems and people who have damaged lungs or breathing passages.11
Methane1
VOCs (C2-C7)1 Volatile Organic Compounds cause serious health problems such as cancer and other effects. All VOCs contain carbon. They can cause serious human illness. Hazardous. Causes ozone. Ozone causes breathing problems, reduced lung function, asthma, irritates eyes, stuffy nose, reduced resistance to colds and other infections, may speed up aging of lung tissues. Causes fatigue, generalized depression, increased lethargy or sleep, headaches, substernal pressure, generalized aches and accelerated cardiac action.17 Environmental Effects - ozone can damage plants and trees; smog can cause reduced visibility
Aldehydes 1
Formaldehyde1 The gas is toxic if inhaled or absorbed through the skin and is carcinogenic. 14 Can Harm Plants.11
Acrolein 1 Toxic, Bronchopneumonia, aveolitis, swelling and hemorraging of tiny vessels.16
Propionaldehyde1 Toxic 11
Butryaldehyde1
Acetaldehyde1 Toxic 11 , degeneration of
March 24, 2009 at 10:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Best comment I've heard was from a customer at a certain bar we all know and love.
The next time they want to take my first amendment rights, I'm going to exercise my second.
Love it!
March 24, 2009 at 10:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Ban all tobacco to save one human life. Ban all cars. I have to tell you pro ban people that you remind me of my old record player when the needle got stuck. It usually just needed a little thump to get going again. You must be getting paid to do this. Otherwise, I hope the lobotomy is reversible! Sorry to get snippy, but you people need to do some reading, and stop just repeating the same worn out, disproven arguments overandoverandoverandoverandover. THUMP
March 24, 2009 at 10:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Part3 wood smoke/shs chemicals & health effects cont.
Acetaldehyde1 Toxic 11 , degeneration of olfactory epithelium, liver lesions, nasal cancer, growth retardation.16
Furfural1 Irritates mucous membranes, causes headaches and photosensitivity and affects sugar metabolism. 14
Substituted Furans1
Benzene1 Colorless volatile liquid. Harmful by transdermal absorption and acutely toxic by ingestion or inhalation, causing mucous membrane irritation, neurological symptoms, and death due to respiratory failure; chronic exposure may result in bone marrow depression and anemia. 14 Causes reproductive toxicity.15
Alkyl Benzenes 1
Toluene1 Toulene is a well known addictive substance. (Glue sniffing) It gives feelings of intoxication. Causes sleepiness, dizziness, headache, muscular weakness, confusion, impaired co-ordination, and visual impairment. It is neurotoxic causing neurobehaivioral changes. Causes changes in Liver and kidneys, erosion of the nose, degeneration of respiratory tract skin. Chronic abuse causes damage to the brain in the cerebral area and causes brain stem atrophy.16 Causes reproductive toxity.15 Accumulates in blood and subcutaneous fat if insufficient clearance time between exposures. Irritates eyes and upper respiratory tract. Toulene intereacts with other human exposures such as alcohol ingestion. Pattern recognition is disturbed, by both Alcohol and Toulene. Toulene effects accuracy more than Alcohol. Toulene combined with Alcohol caused performance and mood to decline more than for either one separately.
March 24, 2009 at 10:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Part 4 more wood smoke/shs chemicals & health effects
Acetic Acid1 Irritant
Formic Acid1 More irritating than acetic acid. Dangerously caustic to the skin. 14
Nitrogen Oxides (NO,NO2)1 Lung damage. Illnesses of breathing passages and lungs (respiratory system). Acid aerosol which damages trees and lakes. 11
Sulfur Dioxide1 Insecticide. Breathing problems, may cause permanent damage to lungs. Environmental effects - SO2 is an ingredient in acid rain (acid aerosols), which can damage trees and lakes. Acid aerosols can also reduce visibility.
Methyl chloride1 Toxic 11
Napthalene1 Toxic 11, Carcinogenic. Acts like alcohol. 14
Substituted Napthalenes 1 Toxic 11
Oxygenated Monoaromatics 1
Guaiacol (and derivatives)1
Phenol (and derivatives)1 Poison: colic, seizures, cardiac arrhythmias, shock, respiratory arrest. 14 Toxic 11, tremors, lower fetal body weight, possible skin carcinogen, EPA Inhalation data insufficient.16.
Syringol (and derivatives)1
Catechol (and derivatives1 Toxic 11
Total Particle Mass 1
Particulate Organic Carbon1 Toxic 11
Oxygenated PAHs 1
If anyone wants me to stop listing the chemicals & health effects of wood smoke/shs, just say so ! There are many more on this list & I think eveyone may be getting an idea by now just how hazardous and deadly a purposeful & necessary thing can be and is. But if you are not convinced yet I will post the entire list in several parts if you wish or you may visit this website and read the list yourselves ,
http://www.burningissues.org/car-www/...
March 24, 2009 at 10:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Here is an even better list of chemicals present in wood smoke ! http://www.burningissues.org/car-www/...
March 24, 2009 at 10:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
If you visit the websites I posted in my previous post. Just think or imagine the amount of dangerous, potentially deadly smoke/shs that would be dispersed into the air from, oh , say a 1000 or possibly as few as 100 chimneys belching wood smoke from fireplaces, etc into the air that the public, we all breathe. And this common practice is thought of as necessary and serves a purpose by some.
March 24, 2009 at 10:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
So, has anyone else with a yellow sign in their yard received an empty beer bottle in their mailbox, or was this a special gift just for me?
seriouslyfolks:
Who's name comes to mind for this one????????? ; D
March 24, 2009 at 11:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
commonsenseemporia (anonymous) says...
Good catch on Judge Osteen's decision, MisterO. I wonder why OSHA still references the report, which is still available on the EPA Website.
You suppose it could be because Osteen's decision was vacated in 2002 by the Court of Appeals?
March 25, 2009 at 12:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"Is that some kind of code, or did you fall asleep on your keyboard?"
Stop looking at me like I have QWERTY written on my forehead!
in other news:
slvrnblk says: If one person's life is saved by this ban, isn't it worth it?
My reply to this is: If one more business in Emporia closes, is it worth it?
You want your life saved, save it yourself! Don't go to businesses that allow smoking! Why should the government have to intervene in something you are perfectly capable (hopefully) to do yourself! I honestly feel this is the difference between the CLean Air People (The CLAP) and EOB. The CLAP wants the government to make a decision that any semi-educated person should be able to make for themselves. EOB's stand is that you should be perfectly able to make that decision on your own, and more government rules and regulations aren't needed.
On behalf of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of men, I humbly beseech you to vote a most enthusiastic NO on April 7th.
March 25, 2009 at 1:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Point-- "Clean air is the default setting."
Counterpoint- http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/i...
March 25, 2009 at 1:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
commonsenseemporia posted, "Good catch on Judge Osteen's decision, MisterO. I wonder why OSHA still references the report, which is still available on the EPA Website.
You suppose it could be because Osteen's decision was vacated in 2002 by the Court of Appeals?"
I'd be very interested in reading that. You have a link to the decision?
Not that it would change my opinion since OSHA still lists permissible exposure levels and none of you have demonstrated that any business in Emporia is violating those laws, but I would still be interested in reading it.
March 25, 2009 at 5:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Following are additional excerpts from Judge Osteen's opinion:
"The record and EPA's explanation to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies." (Page 77)
" ... When an agency changes its methodology mid-stream, as EPA did here, it has an obligation to explain why." (Page 78)
"The studies EPA selected did not include a significant number of studies and data which demonstrated no association between ETS and cancer." (Page 80)
"In summary, Plaintiffs raise legitimate questions not addressed in the record regarding EPA's bioplausibility theory. If confronted by a representative committee that voiced industry concerns, EPA would likely have had to resolve these issues in the record. It is not clear whether EPA could have or can do so. These issues are more than periphery. If EPA's a priori hypothesis fails, EPA has no justification for manipulating the Agency's standard scientific methodology." (Page 65)
"Since Chapter 2 found ETS and MS mainstream smoke not sufficiently similar, Chapter 3 found them similar, and Chapter 6 found them dissimilar, EPA apparently used a different risk assessment methodology for each chapter .... The court is faced with the ugly possibility that EPA adopted a methodology for each chapter, without explanation, based on the outcome sought in that chapter. ... It is striking that MS and ETS were similar only where such a conclusion promoted finding ETS a carcinogen." (Pages 60 and 61)
"EPA's study selection is disturbing. First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta-analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines .... Third, EPA's selective use of data conflicts with the Radon Research Act .... In conducting a risk assessment under the Act, EPA deliberately refused to assess information on all aspects of indoor air quality." (Page 72)
more to come on this lawsuit thing
March 25, 2009 at 5:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pencilguy (anonymous) says...
it is strange how you accuse us of repeating ourselves, but you really can't hear yourself can you? "Show us the bodies!" "Don't eat where they allow smoke!" "Don't repeat yourself!" Plus those business's don't have to close. When you go eat somewhere, is it only because you want to have a smoke? If you go there, you must like to eat there! If they close it's YOUR fault for not appreciating things other than smoking. Are they making a profit from you coming in and having a smoke? They're still in business because you must be buying something from them, and no, they can't live off of just cigarette sells. Also, you have a point, there are a growing number of NO SMOKING places around Emporia. But why can't it come sooner? It doesn't matter to you, then, it's going to happen one way or another. procastinators
March 25, 2009 at 7:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
pencilguy posted, "When you go eat somewhere, is it only because you want to have a smoke? If you go there, you must like to eat there! If they close it's YOUR fault for not appreciating things other than smoking. Are they making a profit from you coming in and having a smoke? They're still in business because you must be buying something from them, and no, they can't live off of just cigarette sells. Also, you have a point, there are a growing number of NO SMOKING places around Emporia. But why can't it come sooner? It doesn't matter to you, then, it's going to happen one way or another."
You have so far failed to present a single indisputable reason why the ban should be implemented, nor have you shown that the air quality in any Emporia business violates the air quality standards implemented by Federal law.
Do you have something worthwhile to contribute or do you intend to continue beating your chest and ranting like so many others on your side of the debate?
How 'bout this:
In a single paragraph, in your own words, tell us how this ban will 'save more lives' than a grown adult exercising common sense and personal responsiblity choosing not to enter one of the few business that still allow smoking.
March 25, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
pencilguy
I have said several times that I am tired of repeating my self. I will do it again however, for you to ignore.
Under the current laws(pre-ban) it is extremely easy for me, a nonsmoker, to avoid shs. I fail to see how it could be more difficult for anyone else. The education on the dangers of smoking along with the restrictions and taxes put on tobacco are working to reduce the number of smokers thus reducing the demand for a place to go and have a smoke and share a joke with friends. (I believe that a lot of the people that go to a bar and spend money on their products do so in part because the can smoke there. It's part of the service. I believe this because bar owners and patrons have told me this. They probably know themselves and their business better than you or I. Why not listen to them?) Anyway back to the point. This ban is not necessary because the current methods are working and it is easy for anyone that chooses to or is deathly afraid of a little smoke to avoid it. I still find it very odd that so many health advocates are so in a hurry to go to a smoke free bar and drink alcohol when alcohol is more unhealthy than shs. That's just so absurd to me. Now is when you say "What about the restaurants?" in your smug know it all voice. I don't think a ban in restaurants is necessary(see above reasons) but I can see the arguments for one. Apparently so could the EOB. (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this) I believe the EOB tried to compromise with the CAE and have the ban on everything except bars. I have to question the CAE's motives for not compromising. A bar unless it's a juice bar is not a healthy place to go smoking or not. The argument is that smoking affects others while the other products sold in nonjuice bars only affects the user(which in and of it's self is a lie but whatever) but it's still unhealthy. shs is only unhealthy if you go around it. So the question remains why not let a few places still cater to people who want to smoke with their buddies? What is the true motivation behind banning smoking in bars? It sure isn't health!
you said
"Also, you have a point, there are a growing number of NO SMOKING places around Emporia. But why can't it come sooner? It doesn't matter to you, then, it's going to happen one way or another. procastinators"
Why does it need to happen instantly? So you can go to a bar and breath clean air but drink something that is worse for you than shs?
If you want to go to a certain restaurant, why? There are enough nonsmoking restaurants that cater to you and I(nonsmokers) that their isn't a need to go to one that caters to someone else. If you go there now, why? Why support a business that you believe is killing you? If you don't support them maybe they will go nonsmoking. That's how the free market works. If they don't change then go some other place. It's really that simple.
Please vote NO. Thank you.
March 25, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
josies--
you said " Why should the government have to intervene in something you are perfectly capable (hopefully) to do yourself! {The CAE} wants the government to make a decision that any semi-educated person should be able to make for themselves. EOB's stand is that you should be perfectly able to make that decision on your own, and more government rules and regulations aren't needed."
You are exactly right. Any semi-educated person should know that their smoke afffects others and they should take it outside so that they do not harm others with their smoke. Period. Unfortunately, some smokers don't have the common courtesy to do so, so the CAE is asking for Govt. help.
seriously--
Pay attention please.....drinking alcohol affects me and me only. Smoking a cigarette affects everyone around me. When I drink the alcohol it goes directly into my system, the byproduct goes into the toilet. When I light up, the smoke goes into the air for all to breathe, the byproduct (exhale) also goes into the air for all to breathe. Either option is a bad health choice but only one of them affects everyone around.
you said
"Under the current laws(pre-ban) it is extremely easy for me, a nonsmoker, to avoid shs."
The point is that you shouldn't have to. SHS is a health issue and you are allowing the smoker to dictate where you go. Like Absolute said non-smoking is the default setting. Smokers are changing the atmosphere by adding harmful smoke to the air that we all have to breathe. The CAE is not trying to tell anyone to NOT smoke, they are saying that if you choose to do so, that you need to do it outside so that everyone around you does not have to smoke YOUR cigarette regardless if they are a smoker or not.
March 25, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Well I never thought I would say it, but something good came out the stolen signs problem.
A person came in the bar Monday night so mad he donated $300.00 to buy more signs. So we have another 100+ being done now. And they are the same lovely shade of yellow. If you want 1 in YOUR yard call 343-1232 after 1:00 & leave your name & adddress & phone # we'll get 1 out to you.
Steve Corbin
EOB
March 25, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
slvr
"Pay attention please.....drinking alcohol affects me and me only. Smoking a cigarette affects everyone around me. When I drink the alcohol it goes directly into my system, the byproduct goes into the toilet. When I light up, the smoke goes into the air for all to breathe, the byproduct (exhale) also goes into the air for all to breathe. Either option is a bad health choice but only one of them affects everyone around."
Seriously, I understand what you are saying but with it being so easy to avoid shs it becomes a matter of choice if someone wants to be exposed to shs just like it is their choice to drink and harm themselves. They are both choices people make. It has been established in other threads that no one is being forced by a smoker to be around them.
The education is out there so people know the dangers. The restrictions on tobacco are in place to make it easy to avoid. The demand for smoke free places is growing and the demand is being filled so the smoke free options are growing. George Lopez had a great sit-com where he always said "I got this!" meaning that he was handling the situation (even though for comedic effect he in fact wasn't). Right now the free market is screaming "I got this!" but no one is laughing because this situation isn't funny it's just pathetic. I've seriously thought about what the other side is thinking with including bars on this and after the migraine goes away all I can think is that it's a bunch of rich fat cats or wanta-bes trying to throw their weight around. I've been around this town all my life except for the time when I served this free nation in the US Army and I've seen how these people opperate and it's pathetic.
Please vote NO. Thank you.
March 25, 2009 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
seriously--
Ok, I understand where you are coming from but I disagree. If you would please explain how this "issue" is any different than food preparation laws, or requirements for clean water, or capacity laws, or speeding laws, or seatbelt laws. All of those things are in place for people's safety. Some of them the individual has to abide by and some of them the business owner has to abide by. All of them are for health safety reasons. I understand that some people disagree in adding "another" law but how is this new law any different than the ones above?
March 25, 2009 at 11:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
VOTE YES!
March 25, 2009 at 11:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I'm not at all surprised the signs were stolen considering the heavy handed tactics used by CAE throughout this ordeal. Just another example of their lack of concern about anything other than their own narrow agenda. They must all be
Republican's. Vote NO April 7th!
March 25, 2009 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
slvr
Food and water safety regs don't infringe on the free market because there is no demand for tainted food or dirty water. The clean water regulations actually put unhealthy chemicals into our drinking water but in amounts that are not harmful (another concept that is ignored by the ban proponents). Capacity laws help people get out of a building in case there is a problem. There is no problem now with people getting away from shs. If a place was too packed and a fire broke out people might have a dificult time getting out. With the current pre-ban laws and regulation this problem doesn't exist, you can simply walk away from shs or even run if it scares you so much. Speed limit laws are to keep people safe on the roads because they are designed for everyone. Racetracks however are designed for a different purpose and don't have speed limits(I don't think). Bars are not for everyone like a racetrack is not for everyone. If you can't handle the speed don't drive on a racetrack. If you don't like shs don't go to a place that has shs. Simple. Seatbelt laws............. I don't know? I always wear mine but I'm not sure that a law is necessarily required. I will have to think about that one. I do know that in a wreck seatbelts keep bodies from crashing into each other. I have never seen anybody being flung involuntarily into a smoking environment. So I guess I still don't see a need for this ban.
Please vote NO. Thank you.
March 25, 2009 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
bisquitboy
I'm pretty sure that most people that support this ban on these forums are liberals and voted for Obama. This is a socialist agenda that lines right up with the Democrats agenda.
This conservative third party voting veteran says vote No please. Thank you.
March 25, 2009 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
To all you CLAP folks, my question is this. How much SHS do you think you are breathing in from pasture fires right now? I can 100% guarantee you that your air is WAY more polluted by burning pastures and auto exhaust than it is by SHS. To think that you will be breathing clean air if this ban takes affect, is to me, laughable. Kind of makes you wonder which is really worse. The 2,000 acre pasture fire, or a 3 inch cigarette. I have not done any scientific research on this at all, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the 2,000 acre pasture fire probably puts out more smoke in one year (they do it every year, remember) than all of the smokers in the United States put out in 10 years.
March 25, 2009 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Seriouslyfolks,
I agree that although Theresa Walters won on the republican ticket, this is very much a liberal law. Look at the places where it started. California, (the People's Republic of) Boulder CO, Seattle, and here in KS, Lawrence. Definitely reeks of liberals. They are the ones who are always screaming for more government intervention, so this law doesn't surprise me. I do find it funny that CA is trying to legalize marijuana and strengthen their smoking ban at the same time.
March 25, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
seriously--
I am Republican.
you said
"Food and water safety regs don't infringe on the free market because there is no demand for tainted food or dirty water"
Do you really think that there is a demand for dirty or tainted air?
If I were to urinate in the water supply at Town Royal that would be illegal because it pollutes everyones water and could make people sick. It wouldn't necessarily make anyone sick, but could. What is the difference with that and polluting the air with smoke? Would that be ok if Steve put up a sign that said that water tainting is allowed?
March 25, 2009 at 12:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
slvr
I said right there in that quote that there is NO demand for it.
Pollution is pollution but a ban is unnecessary because shs is easily avoidable with the current regulations. More government is not needed in this case, something that a Republican should understand. That is why I left the Republican party, too many tares among the wheat. I would like the Republicans to return to their small government conservative ways but I'm not holding my breath. Fanny May and Freddie Mac, big government = big failure(Democrats). War in Iraq, big government = big failure(remains to be seen)(Republicans). I'm seein' a pattern here. Anyone else? Maybe the government isn't the solution to all our problems. Maybe we should do some things for ourselves like avoiding something when it offends our delicate sensibilities. Especially when it is so incredibly easy to do.
Better dead than red!
Vote NO!
(perhaps I exaggerate a bit)
March 25, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
crack, here is the difference between the examples you gave above. Those things are illegal, yes. If you really want clean air, make tobacco illegal. Eliminate the source. Tobacco is a legal product. Smoking has already been banned in all public places already. Trying to ban it in private businesses is, to me, asinine and encroaching. I honestly believe that you people don't care about the health issue at, and that it is a smokescreen (boo-yah) for the fact that you want all businesses in town to cater to you.
Heart You Always,
Matt
P.S.-- If they did legalize prostitution, we would probably never see you on here again, and that would make me sad.
March 25, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
crack
You always jump to extremes making it sound like I am for anarchy. I have stated several times that I am not.
Tobacco is already regulated and people are protected from involuntary exposure to shs outside of private homes(which will be the next ban or maybe the one after that, this remains to be seen) so I don't see a need for the ban. It's that simple.
This US Army veteran says note NO please. Thank you.
March 25, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
seriously--
You said there was no demand for tainted water or food, my question was do you think their is a demand for tainted AIR?
I also asked this...
If I were to urinate in the water supply at Town Royal that would be illegal because it pollutes everyones water and could make people sick. It wouldn't necessarily make anyone sick, but could. What is the difference with that and polluting the air with smoke? Would that be ok if Steve put up a sign that said that water tainting is allowed?
March 25, 2009 at 2:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
My God, crack, please re-read this sentence in you last statement, " All of this simply because you don’t want to be told what to do. " Isn't that exactly what you and the other smoking ban supporters have been saying about yourselves all this time. You don't want to be told what to do ! Well there is an old saying that goes, " Whats good for the goose is good for the Gander !
You and the other smoking ban supporters know that this smoking ban or any ban is wrong and unnecessary. Stop being so stubborn and dicititorial and have the common decency and tolerance to let people live their lives without worrying about being harassed, thought of as less a person than anyone else, just becase they are doing something you don't like and decide to intelligently stay away from places that may have SHS. Don't people who smoke have to stay away from places that do not allow smoking ? Why should it be any different for you to have to either avoid smoking establishments or stay outside those estableshments ? Are you and the other smoking ban opponents any better than those people who smoke or businesses or business owners who choose to allow smoking ? If you are not better, then stop acting like it !
Do the right and fair thing and VOTE NO and put a stop this better than you and holier than thou attitude of the smoking ban advocates !
March 25, 2009 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck ;
Why does everything you try to compare to smoking/SHS have to be dragged down to gutter comparisons or bodily fluid comparisons, etc., when the comparisons of those kinds of actions cannot in any way shape or form be compared to smoking or SHS ! In my opinion, you smoking ban advocates are getting really desperate to garner " Yes " votes. All I can say is if you thing urinating in the water supply of public place, pouring grease, etc. down someones throat, etc. is comparable to smoking/SHS, you are all very sick individuals already !
Sensible people of Emporia. Do not be taken in by these ridiculous comparisons that the smoking ban advocates seem to think are appropiate and VOTE NO !
March 25, 2009 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
slvrnblk:
I know you asked seriouslyfolks, but I feel compelled to answer your questions with questions.
Q. "......do you think their is a demand for tainted AIR?"
A. Are there citizens who like to smoke while drinking or eating and socializing?
Q. "What is the difference with that and polluting the air with smoke? "
A. The public drinking water system provides for the entire city. Do any of the smoking allowed establishments provide the air for the entire city?
March 25, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
As we discussed the other day, dear, darling crack. As long as the owner posted a warning sign about the tainted water and the possible health hazards, it would be the consumer's responsibility of choice, now wouldn't it???????
Sorry, Steve, I know I said a couple of days. Does it count if it's FELT like a lot of days?
March 25, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Thanks crack.
oh4--
If you notice my post I mentioned urinating in only Town Royals water....not the whole town. And I asked if that would be okay if Steve put up a sign that said "Contaminated Water".
meth--
Gutter comparisons? Are you kidding? Have you ever seen pictures of smokers lungs or have you ever seen the filter from a bar's ventilation system. They are filled with black and brown sticky tar. Get back to me after you check one out.
March 25, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Blackshirt (anonymous) says...
Here is a thought completely off the yard sign topic, which it appears has already happened. Why is it that all of the CAE "board" members use their work email addresses to conduct their personal agenda? I believe there are a couple wth USD 253 email addresses and the rest are from ESU. It would seem to me that the tax payers are not just supplementing the CAE through EDA but through these peoples salaries as well. Hmmm? Do you suppose that any of them signed an IT policy that said personal emails are open records when sent or recieved on their agencies equipment? Someone might want to contact the FOIA designees at the school district and university to see if there is a misuse of governmental property by a member of a PAC.
March 25, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
I have yet to see a list of CAE members. All I have seen was a list of the Emporians for Drug Awareness. Does someone have a list of just the CAE?
March 25, 2009 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Just an offhand reply to slvrblck;
Have you ever had a drink in my bar? The amount of alcohol in it would kill any bacteria or cancer causing agent.
Not a proven fact, Like many of the studies touted by CAE, but a good chance.
Steve
March 25, 2009 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Hey bartender,
how come my drink has a little twang taste?
March 25, 2009 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Blackshirt (anonymous) says...
The following link will take you to the CAE contact site.
http://www.emporiansfordrugawareness....
March 25, 2009 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wyse_guy (anonymous) says...
Hey slvrnblck why dont you and crack and the rest of the cae start your own bar no smoking and urination drinks. This entire bogus ban is sounding like it's just against the businesses that dont Kiss Your A$$ everytime you drag your better than god attitudes in there front doors. Nobodys dragging any of you into any place that allows smoking so grow up and make choices like a normal person would. Are you really that stupid that you would go into a place then do nothing but complain about it the rest of your pathetic life.
Vote NO to this ridiculous ban.
Crack, on my job if I was here running my mouth while I am getting paid they would call it theft what does your job call it?
March 25, 2009 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
Yes, I have been in your establishment many times.
blackshirt--
Thanks for the link. I had never seen it.
wyseguy--
Nope the ban is still about protecting everyone's health and removing useless contaminents from the air.
March 25, 2009 at 4:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pencilguy (anonymous) says...
We have many other points, you know. We could try (see that? TRY) to tell you that smoking is bad for YOU. That hasn't gotten through to you. If there isn't enough evidence that second hand smoke is bad, then why do most government buildings ban smoking? It's like this. I've seen some of you admit that there actually is some kind of chance of getting hurt by second hand smoke. Why, then, do you even take the chance? There is a chance that when you hang yourself you'll die, but who wants to hang themselves?
March 25, 2009 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
crackinsack posted, "We are asking people not to harm us. BIG difference there, chum."
Nobody's harming you but yourself. BIG differnce there, chum.
Do the right and fair thing and VOTE NO. Stop the lies.
slvrnblck posted, "If you notice my post I mentioned urinating in only Town Royals water....not the whole town. And I asked if that would be okay if Steve put up a sign that said "Contaminated Water".
If that were a legal activity, and Steve allowed that legal activity to occur in his private business, and the patrons were aware of it and made the choice to drink anyway, then yes. Why wouldn't it be ok?
pencilguy posted, "I've seen some of you admit that there actually is some kind of chance of getting hurt by second hand smoke. Why, then, do you even take the chance? "
I agree completely - why would a anyone enter a business that allows smoking if they believe it's unhealthy.
March 25, 2009 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck;
I have not seen any kind of a bar air filter and I have seen alleged pictures of smokers lungs and can it be proven that smoking was the only and single cause of what is pictured in so-called photos of smokers lungs and wasn't the result of other possible exposures ? Are you the bar air filter inspector ? Even if a bars air filter is dirty it does not mean that the only single cause of that dirty filter is smoke or SHS or that the levels of smoke/SHS are at hazardous levels, now does it ? Have you ever seen photos of someones lungs that are exposed to biomass smoke, such as wood smoke ? I have and I tell you this, I couldn't tell the difference between the two photos !
And no I am not kidding about the gutter comparisons ! One has to do with intentionally urinating in the Town Royals water supply, smoking/shs has nothing to do with intentionally doing harm to anyone, as you and the other control advocates claim it to be ! How can smoking/SHS be intentionally meaning to harm anyone, when everyone can choose either to not be there or leave if they are there ? By the way targeting the Town Royal to do your gutter attack to, is maliciously targeting someone or a business that apparantly you dislike or hate and that fact in itself proves that this is not a health issue but an over the top dislike and control issue ! And some of the smoking ban advocates have calle some smoking ban opponants, " Terrorists " !!!!!!
March 25, 2009 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Moving to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
March 25, 2009 at 5:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )