slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

VOTE YES!!!

March 26, 2009 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"Let's take one ban at a time, folks."

If We the People vote this ban in, this is EXACTLY what we can expect from this group. One ban at a time, one right after the other. Please don't let me be able to say I told you so. Vote this down now, and stop this crap before it becomes unstoppable.

March 26, 2009 at 12:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

crackinsack posted, "Banning fast food within 500 ft of a school is ridiculous"

Almost as ridiculous as banning smoking in bars and restaurants.

crackinsack speaks the truth for a change, "Let's take one ban at a time, folks."

This is one of the reasons many of us are against the ban. It is an almost certainty that those who are chipping away at our rights as individuals and private business owners will continue chipping until there is nothing left for them to take.

Don't let them lie to you. Do your own research - look at the documentation available. Read the actual research reports and find out where the numbers come from. Ask who is funding this. Don't let people like crackinsack and the country club clique do your thinking for you. Most importantly, don't be swayed by the political spin.

Draw your own conclusions and vote NO.

March 26, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Here's a fun little factoid for those of you who didn't know. After Barnett's state-wide ban was shot down in a blaze of glory, he snuck the whole bill in as an amendment to the bill concerning day-care. You know, the feel-good one that everyone votes for. I've stated before on here, I think he's trying to get the state ban pushed through before the election in Emporia.

http://www.khi.org/s/index.cfm?aid=2041

These are the underhanded tactics used by these people to push their own agendas on you. Vote this ban down by voting NO!

March 26, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

allintogether (anonymous) says...

I want to vote no on the ban but I can't because I live outside the city limits. I will happily show my solidarity with the bars against the ban by going into Town Royal, Bruffs, Mary's, etc. and courageously drink cold beer and laugh with my friends though according to CAE it will surely mean my death.

Maybe a compromise is the requirement of a air filtration system in bars that allow smoking with the benefit of a tax rebate or abatement for the owner. It probably won't satisfy the CAE nutjobs even though most systems can filter out particles smaller than a tenth of a micron or even less. I think they have a vision of people getting together in vacuum sealed clean rooms in level 4 contamination suits. Think The Andromeda Strain mixed with Cheers. HA!

March 26, 2009 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

The CAE spin machine is spinning so fast it resembles a tornado. During the debate on KVOE, the pro-ban babblers stated they do not want to eliminate smoking, just restrict it. Then why is it called a "ban" and make smoking illegal in every building in Emporia? Smoking is already restricted in nearly every public building in Emporia so restricting smoking for "health reasons" is obviously not this group's ultimate goal.

The CAE mouthpieces also stated emphatically that the smoking ban was being proposed for one reason---health---especially for those "forced" to work in a smoky enviroment and, of course, around their poor innocent children.

Again, the spin is making be dizzy. If this is a health issue and intended to protect the children of CAE supporters, why does the ban prohibit smoking in every motel room in Emporia? When I pay $100, or in some cases, $400, per night to rent a hotel room, I expect to be able to smoke in there if I "choose" to. Exactly who is going to suffer if a guest in our city smokes in their motel room? Your kids? The general public? The hotel staff? I hope not. If so, there is some hanky-panky going on in there and someone, maybe the CAE CIA, should investigate.

The same goes for private clubs like the VFW, American Legion, and Eagles. How often does Sister Theresa and her CAE converts, or their children, while away idle hours in those private confines?

And then there are those rowdy, evil, dens of iniquity; the bars. The ban wants to protect bar patrons, and their children, from second-hand smoke by making smoking illegal in all bars. Isn't that like trying to ban flying baseballs in a ball park because they have been known to injure spectators? I think people who attend ball games accept that risk when they buy a ticket as bar patrons do when they walk in the front door. How about letting the bar owners and their patrons decide that issue? Now, there is an idea that seems fair to everyone. Gosh! Why didn't we think of that before all this divisive debate took place?

The ban is even far more intrusive and radical than that. It would ban smoking in your own home, 24 hours per day, if you conduct ANY type of business from your home; such as part-time selling of Avon, Mary Kay, or lingerie. If you do repair work, day care, bookkeeping, or any other work from your home that requires even one person a day to come there, you would be banned from smoking there 24-7.

This ban is not comprehensive; it is punitive. It will not benefit our community; it will harm it. It does not unite us; it divides us. It does not right a wrong; it is wrong.

Protect your rights to make your own choices and decisions. Conserve our freedoms and values. Keep dysfunctional government out of our private lives.

Don't allow a few pompous a$$es set standards for the masses.

Vote "NO" on April 7.

March 26, 2009 at 4:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BabyGirlSissy (anonymous) says...

VOTE NO !!!
I believe the same as all of you that are going to vote no. They are so worried about smoking in restruants but there is already no smoking in them in emporia so thats no even the point. They are targeting BARS for the most part. And dont bar owners pay the rent on them. Dont they pay taxes on them. Just as we do on our houses. If a bar owner dont want smoking it there that should be up to them. NOT the government. But I have a strong feeling that even if they vote is no at the polls it wont matter. They are still goin to tell us ( WE THE PEOPLE ) to bend over and take it up the tailpipe without any lube. They continue to take away our rights one step at a time. And Im tired of it. I am 30 years old. I am not a child to be told what I can do and what I cant. Its personal choice. And if they dont want to be around the smoke that I blow out of my mouth, well then dont go to where Im at. Its plain and simple.
And to the comment I read on the vote yes page of :
"We’ve heard it said that it takes a village to raise a child"

Well I'll raise my own children. Not the village idiots.

If this ban does go thru its just another way to control us.
And if it goes thru it wont be the last of the bans yet to come.
Emporia has more important issues at hand then this but they do nothing about them.
What about jobs? Housing? Stuff like that. Its bad when we have to decide do I rent a place to live or feed my children. Tons of us are struggling just to amke ends meet. But are these people that are trying to get the smoking ban in place struggling? No they have nice houses nice cars ( that pollute ) and are living comfortably.
Its all about **** the little people.
Ok Im done with this post for now.
And I WILL see you all on April 7th to VOTE NO.

March 26, 2009 at 4:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting tired of a anti-smoking ad every 2 or 3 minutes. I know it's good money for Sauder, but As soon as Ron Thomas goes off the air I have been switching to the other stations, you know
THE WAVE 96.1
KISS 103.1
A LOT LESS PROPAGANDA

Steve

March 26, 2009 at 5:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

This fight does seem to be a bit one-sided. On one side you have the wealthiest citizens, the guy who owns the local radio stations flooding the airways with propaganda (and making a ton of money doing so), and an endless stream of funds from special interest groups, federal funds, and taxpayer money priming the special interest pump.

On the other side you have small business owners using their own hard-earned money and perspiration and a lot of common folks trying to prevent an injustice by word of mouth.

It appears to be one of those "let them eat cake" things, or a David and Goliath deal. Of course, Marie-Antoinette lost her selfish head on the guillotine and little ol' David won his battle against Goliath, so let's keep up the fight against overwhelming odds and tyrrany. As my hero Yogi said, "It ain't over 'til it's over".

Vote "NO" on April 7.

March 26, 2009 at 5:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smogman (anonymous) says...

If it aint broke, dont fix it !!!!! VOTE NO

March 26, 2009 at 5:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Amen, Smogman. We eat out in Emporia several times each week. Smoking is not allowed in the restaurants we patronize. I have never seen anyone smoking in any retail store or business we frequent here in town, either. Smoking isn't allowed in any of our government buildings and anyone visiting our friendly city can get a motel room free of smoke or a smoke smell.

So, what the heck are the nicotine narcs, Sister Theresa, and the CAE stormtroopers trying to fix? I don't get it. It can't be a health issue; smoking is already banned in every building in Emporia where people are forced to go, and most where they are not.

I smell something rotten in Denmark; or a hidden agenda.

Vote for sanity. Vote "NO" on April 7.

March 26, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BabyGirlSissy (anonymous) says...

can someone tell me where i can get those Vote NO signs? Also some of the vote yes people keep sayin there is resturants in emporia that allow smoking. So can someone anyone tell me what resturants these are? Because everyone i have been to dont allow smoking. So why do they keep saying that?

VOTE NO ON APRIL 7TH I KNOW I WILL!

March 26, 2009 at 6:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

BabyGirlSissy: They keep saying that because they don't want smoke, second-hand smoke, cigarettes, smelly smokers, or what they perceive as ignorant low-class riff-raff anywhere within their sight or sense of smell, that's why.

They couldn't possibly wage or win this war based on the truth or their real agenda, so they use the ploy of this being a health issue. They cite all the locations in Emporia where second-hand smoke decimates the general public, kills like DDT in a bee hive, and turns their children into walking corpses, when no such places exist.. except bars and private clubs. People have the choice to patronize those locations, and children aren't allowed, but just being there is like living next door to a nuclear reactor, according to the CAE alarmists.

The anti-smoker, anti-choice bullies don't let facts get in the way of their agenda, BabyGirl. I'm glad you and I do, though.

Join BabyGirlSissy and me on April 7. Vote "NO".

March 26, 2009 at 6:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shotdemducks (anonymous) says...

THANK YOU to the PRINCE AND PRINCESS population in THE BIG E for once again LOOKING out for MY HEALTH!! Most of the people that started this "BAN" wouldnt give me the time of day to speak let alone CARE about my HEALTH. Let the business OWNERS make their own policies for THEIR business, if you dont like SMOKE in BARS STAY HOME ON THE HILL!!!

March 26, 2009 at 7:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"Even if you are like me and don’t smoke or go to bars, the important thing is to protect our freedoms."

Preston I am like you and I do want to potect freedom. That being said, I do believe I will be voting NO on this ban.

Please vote NO. Thank you.

March 26, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tbluma (anonymous) says...

Hey crack, exactly what does a fast food place have to do with the smoking ban? I'll tell you. THEY WILL BE NEXT!!!
You can't tell me that all of the grease and the fatty foods and the God forbid RED MEAT, the soda pop,ice cream etc won't be. Where are you people going to quit? You won't and you know you won't. It's your way or the hyway, to hell with anyone that don't agree with you.
But wait, let me think, yeah I remember walters has fast food conections and who knows where sauder is connected so maybe a fast food place or whatever they own may be safe.

March 26, 2009 at 8:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BabyGirlSissy (anonymous) says...

Im so fed up with this Health Issue BS. It has nothing to do with being a health issue. So if it does then the next on the list is fast food because grease is unhealthy, Or how about tv, because it can cause problems with the eyes. Or what about soda pop and candy. All you yes people are so full of it! Theres people out that that dont smoke and is not around SHS that still get the same health issues as some who does. This ban is nothing but a bold face lie. And a slap in the face to the Emporia people that smoke! And Im sure there are more of us that smoke then those that dont. So if you yes people are so upset by my smoking come tell me to my face. Or do you not have the guts to debate this person to person face to face. I will not let the government keep taking things away from me. So i will be voting NO. Then after I vote i will light up a cig. And give you all a big F*** you smile. Hows that for honesty? At least I have the guts to be honest.

VOTE NO APRIL 7TH

March 26, 2009 at 9:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smogman (anonymous) says...

The publicity Emporia will recieve if this ban is defeated will be greater than if it is passed. Other cities will believe this is a town of people that can not be dictated to. VOTE NO

March 26, 2009 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sassyone (anonymous) says...

This article was written by Micheal D. Shaw back in 2005. I just thought this might be relevant.

"The most reliable data would indicate that it (SHS) is nowhere near as serious a threat as elements of the media would have us believe. In fact, (ETS, Environmental Tobacco Smoke), is far less dangerous than numerous other indoor air pollutants such as carbon monoxide, toxic mold, and radon."

This article was written by a man who is an environmental scientist who has done his research. To me, there is no difinitive way of knowing what causes heart disease, breathing and lung problems, and other ailments just by blaming it on secondhand smoke. I was raised by smoking parents. I was in it all my life. I just started smoking three years ago. Granted, this may not be the case for my entire life, but AS OF NOW, I have no breathing problems, I have no asthma, no bronchitis. I did deal with seasonal allergies from which I still suffer. As a matter of fact, out of five children, only one of my siblings has a problem with asthma. I'm not saying smoking is a heathy habit. But COULD IT BE POSSIBLE that this "ban" is just a way of scaring people into thinking that everything that is bad for us will be banned?? I won't stop drinking pop, I won't stop eating chocolate because it causes weight gain. I work in a fast food restaurant. The difference is, I know what not to eat. I don't eat that much fast food even though I work there. I choose to eat salads and I make healthy choices. That is my choice. If we vote "yes" on this ban, we give up that choice. Are we ready to give up more than just our tax dollars to AIG and companies like it? If we vote yes, we do give up that right. I will be voting NO on this ban if you haven't been smart enough to figure that out. I won't give up my rights just for some moron who says something is bad for me. Give Americans a little more credit than that. We're smarter than you think.

March 26, 2009 at 10:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

REMEMBER EVERYONE

YOU CAN VOTE EARLY & GET-ER DONE.

VOTE EARLY
VOTE NO
CHOOSE WHERE YOU GO.

March 26, 2009 at 10:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sassyone (anonymous) says...

VOTE EARLY
VOTE NO
CHOOSE WHERE YOU GO!!!

VOTE EARLY
VOTE NO
CHOOSE WHERE YOU GO!!!

March 26, 2009 at 11:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Stop this madness before it gathers steam! Vote this down by voting NO!

March 27, 2009 at 12:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

generalsn (anonymous) says...

Any tax exempt "charity " that has become a political action committee that, instead of doing research and educating, their primary function, now spends huge sums of money to hire lobbyists to make laws using GESTAPO tactics using LAW ENFORCEMENT, THREATS, INTIMIDITATION, , and SNITCHING to FORCE people to OBEY their guidelines with draconian smoking bans will get NO DONATIONS from me, Since becoming a political action committee, they need to have their tax exempt status investigated by the IRS. Contributions to PACs are NOT tax deductable. All my donations are going to local events and groups that depend on local businesses and bingo halls, that the bans are affecting, for their support, Here are the groups taking that money away from them, all fed by big pharma through their Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals...

March 27, 2009 at 4:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

I just checked out the posts on the yes article. Unfortunately, the comment space has disappeared. I spent an hour yesterday trying to get info on grants directly, and indirectly, paid in the pro ban effort. All radio and most print ads are paid by Kansas Health Foundation. This way your local pro ban people do not have to report the money, in spite of the fact it is used to directly support their campaign.They are a private foundation that receive funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. They are partner to Johnson and Johnson, makers of Nicoderm, Nicerette, and Chantix. The Kansas Dept of Health and Envionnment has a special tobacco department which approves and directs grant applications for use in the pro ban movement. More millions spent there. The radio ads are paid for with the grants received on the State level. Candace Ayers can be contacted in Topeka about her involvement with directing grants and funding ad campaigns. They receive funding from KHA, KHF, KHI, Sunflower,which they direct into chosen communities AFTER lining up local CIty Concil officials through a constant barrage of lobbying. ALL these Foundations are PRIVATE businesses, with PAID employees. There is over a half BILLION dollars per year pumped into this by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The anti smoker (NOT anti smoking) industry IS a business, hiring millions of people nationwide. They DO NOT lobby to stop the SELLING of nicotine products as that would put THEM out of work, AND no one would buy nicotine replacement products! Most State and local health department employees, DO NOT deal with real health issues. They are simply grant seekers, who will DO ANYTHING to get grants. This is their job. NOT taking care of people's health! Billions of dollars spent on buying votes and paying for huge ad campaigns. Too bad the money is not donated for REAL charities. This money could solve some REAL health problems! NOT just NO, but HELL NO to the corporations who are trying to take over our lives,and get us all on their products by eminent domain tactics!!! Not just drug money being spent here, but OUR TAX money, too! Don't forget to thank Blue Cross, also, for their arrempt to blow smoke screens, while making huge political contributions to politicos. What do you think our insurance would really cost if Blue Cross was NOT a lobby group?

March 27, 2009 at 7:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

good letter Preston.

Another non-smoker who gets it!
Hopefully Emporia has about 3 or 4 thousand more voters like you who will,

VOTE EARLY
VOTE NO
AND CHOOSE WHERE TO GO.
Steve

March 27, 2009 at 7:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

Did anyone read the article about the three students, in Lawrence, who were shot while standing OUTSIDE a bar, night before last? Wonder why they weren't inside? It was before closing time. Terrific opportunity for shooting at smokers, huh? Maybe that will be the next suggestion by the pro ban people. "CAE says OK to pick off smokers on sidewalks."

March 27, 2009 at 8:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

crackinsack Trying to blame the smoking ban for an illegal act is ridiculous. Shame on you! Shame, I say!"

Lying about the air in someone's private business harming someone or being unhealthy is ridiculous. Shame on you! Shame, I say!

March 27, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

crack
Trying to make people think you want this ban because of health issues when it is obvious it's really only a convenience issue, Shame on you! Shame, I say!

With the current laws and the fact that the vast majority of places are smoke free it is very easy to avoid shs. It hasn't always been this way but it is now. With it being an easy thing to avoid it really comes down to the individual to decide where they go. It's no inconvenience at all, I have done it for years. With the ease of avoiding shs it is really the stubborn people that go around it even though they think it will surely be the death of them that are harming themselves with their stubbornness.

I have presented a simple solution to the problem without government intervention and it has been reject so if you are harmed by shs it is now on you. If you are afraid of shs "Why, then, do you even take the chance? ". Use your brain, use your feet, if you smell the smoke, hit the street!

This nonsmokin' nondrinkin' third party votin' US Army veteran says vote NO please. Thank you.

March 27, 2009 at 11:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

crack

No where in my posts have I ever suggested that any one cower in their basement even if I do suspect that some people that want this ban probably are adults who still live in their mother's basements. I just find it pathetic that people that feel as though they are being pushed around by smokers now want the government to push the smokers around for them as revenge. Most places are smoke free now. It hasn't always been that way, but it is now. Go to those places, smokers go to the few places that still cater to them. Simple.

By the way dodging a car driven by a drunk is practically imposible depending on their speed. Avoiding shs is as easy as walking.
I don't know if I've mentioned this before but I was in the Army. When I was in I shot many different rifles and machine guns and I can tell you that no one could dodge a bullet. shs on the other hand is super easy to avoid.

I have presented a simple solution to the problem without government intervention and it has been reject so if you are harmed by shs it is now on you. If you are afraid of shs "Why, then, do you even take the chance? ". Use your brain, use your feet, if you smell the smoke, hit the street!

This nonsmokin' nondrinkin' third party votin' US Army veteran says vote NO please. Thank you.

March 27, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

crackinsack posted, "If there is smoke present in the business then those responsible are harming others. How is that a lie?"

Saying that the air in any business in Emporia is unhealthy or that it's harming someone is lie because"

1. Nobody has had the air tested to prove it violates any of the Federal clean air standards, therefore to say the air is unhealthy is a lie.

2. You have failed to demonstrate in any way that someone is being harmed. Have charges been filed against anyone for harming another person? Has anyone been treated by a doctor for harm that was done by the air in anyone's business? Unsubstantiated wild accusations = lie.

Crackinsack also posted, "Are you saying that SHS is 100% healthy for you? That, good sir, is the lie."

Is that what I said, crackinsack? Or are you once again deliberately misrepresenting (lying about) what was said?

The dishonest and deceitful tactics of some of the ban supporters is shameful.

Stop the lies. Vote NO.

March 27, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack; You say " I don't think so. I'm not letting the smokers push me around. "

I must ask you again to explain exactly how are smokers pushing you around, especially when smokers are not forcing you to put yourself in any situation where you believe you will be harmed and if you choose to put yourself in a situation that you believe will harm you, then that is your responsible choice and you are the only one responsible for harming " YOU ". And yet you and others definately want to push the people who smoke, the bussinesses and bussinesses owners around ! What makes you and others believe or think that you have the right to push others around, as you yourself say you don't want to be pushed around !
Your flawed logic, makes it perfectly clear that this is not a health issue, but a bullying and control issue !

Citizens of Emporia, as I have said before, if you just read and understand the smoking ban supporters statements and broadcast propaganda you will see and realize that this smoking ban is not a health issue, but a bullying and control issue. And these smoking ban supporters have stated, in the suttlest of remarks, that if this ban passes, there will be more bans in the future !
And if you, the freedom loving citizens of Emporia do not want to be bullied or controlled by these freedoms banning people, then VOTE NO !

March 27, 2009 at 1:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BabyGirlSissy (anonymous) says...

crank
im tired of the lies and the bs. Your complaning about smoke in bars. A place you never go because your nose is so high in the air to be around us lilttle folks. You are so stuck up to see the truth. The air in the bars in emporia is just fine SHS dont hurt you as bad as your leading everyone to believe. IF it was dont you think they would of outlawed cigarettes like they did with pot or any other DRUG. But they have not and they wont. So you need to wake up to reality. This ban is just your way of gettin money from people when Emporia could use the money for more important issues.
You say "WE" smokers are pushing you around? WHAT IN THE F**K DO YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING TO US!!!!!
Thats like putting a ban on drinking a Coke. Because of the high acid content of it. Just stop with the LIES already. You have shown NO proof nor can you because the proof dont exsist.

VOTE NO APRIL 7TH I KNOW I WILL

March 27, 2009 at 2:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"Thats like putting a ban on drinking a Coke. Because of the high acid content of it."

Guess what New York is doing? An "Obesity Tax" on non-diet soft drinks. I can't make this stuff up people, its THAT bad.

Crack, still want to take "one ban at a time"?

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2...

March 27, 2009 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

From the above article...

"Raising the price of this liquid candy will put children and teens on a path to a healthier diet," said Elie Ward of the American Academy of Pediatrics of New York State.

March 27, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BabyGirlSissy (anonymous) says...

Yeah like my kids or anyone else kids for that matter would stop drinking pop. Just because the price went up. Price of cigarettes are goin up to but I didnt quit smoking because of it.
But that is a very good example of whats yet to come josiesbar.

VOTE NO

March 27, 2009 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

crack
you said
"It's not revenge; it's the legal way to prevent smokers from harming us. The easy way to avoid being hit by a car or bullet is to stay at home and avoid places I'd normally go; exactly what you are suggesting I do to avoid SHS. Solution, Smahlution."

The vast majority of the places are nonsmoking. The VAAAASSSSTTTT majority. I'm not telling you to stay home. I'm saying go to the ones that cater to you. Simple. It hasn't always been so easy for nonsmokers to avoid shs but it is very easy now. You just need to forgive the smokers who you feel have wronged you and move on. Holding that kind of grudge is not healthy and I know of your deep deep concern for your health, I bet that most if not all of the smokers that smoked around you were not intentionally trying to hurt you. They probably just thought that since it was a bar and the owner allowed it, they would smoke. They probably also assumed that since only adults are allowed in bars that anyone going there knew that there would be smoke there and having made that informed decision they werw OK with being around smoke. Anyone with commonsense would make the decision to stay away from shs if they are sure that it is going to kill them, right?

I have presented a simple solution to the problem without government intervention and it has been reject so if you are harmed by shs it is now on you. If you are afraid of shs "Why, then, do you even take the chance? ". Use your brain, use your feet, if you smell the smoke, hit the street!

This nonsmokin' nondrinkin' third party votin' US Army veteran says vote NO please. Thank you.

March 27, 2009 at 2:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sassyone (anonymous) says...

Lets just face it people. I'm voting no but I'm gonna say this will all the love and respect I have. What chance do we really have of winning this battle? It is just one battle in the middle of a civil rights war. We cannot win this even with our votes, and if we do, God be with us all. Standing together is always a good thing, but when it comes right down to it, the Commissioner, The Mayor, the City Councilmen will get their foot in the door and it WILL NOT MATTER. Our liberties have gone out the window and I just hate to see what's next. Domestic violence will go up as a result because people go to a bar to have a drink and a smoke. They will not be allowed to do this anymore, so they will stay home and get drunk there. Drunk driving accidents will increase. Who will be the first person to light up outside their home after this ban passes? Are we willing to go to jail for our rights? Im sure there is a high paid attorney out there who would love this case in court. They've already taken the ten commandments away. What else is left?

March 27, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

crackinsack posted, "MisterO, Why do you trust federal standards and no other studies? Is everything under the federal standers perfectly healthy for you? How do you know? You are certainly implying that SHS is perfectly healthy for you otherwise it should be banned."

I'm implying nothing of the sort. You and others like you are the ones claiming that the air in Emporia businesses is unhealthy.

I take responsibility for my health into my own hands. You and others like you are the ones demanding the government save you from yourselves.

What I AM implying (no, sorry - I'm not 'implying' at all; I'm flat out saying) is that grown adults should have the common sense to take responsibility for their own well-being and not demand an Orwellian society to protect them.

March 27, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BabyGirlSissy (anonymous) says...

crank
what Bars do you frequently go to then?
Oh I see its ok to push around smokers but not ok to push around non smokers? Is that something you want to teach the children? And we're not talking about Murders here. SHS hasnt killed anyone and IF it has show me the proof!!!
VOTE NO APRIL 7TH TAKE BACK OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOM!

March 27, 2009 at 3:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

sassyone posted, "What chance do we really have of winning this battle?"

The deceptive way the ballot is worded "ban smoking in public places", I doubt we have much chance at all, but I will not sit quietly by and watch my liberties stripped from me piece by piece.

I don't smoke. And I don't go to bars.

But I will vote NO on this issue.

March 27, 2009 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

sassyone-- If the ban is voted down in Emporia, Sen. Barnett will not be able to push this through on a state-wide level. If he tries, all someone has to do is stand up in Topeka and ask, "if the people of Emporia vote this down, and they feel it is not good for them, how can you possibly say it will be good for the rest of the state." Also, if he tries to sneak it through disguised as another bill in order to have it passed statewide before Emporia votes on it, kind of like he is doing now, then we can start talking of a possible recall.

It is time for Us the People to remind the governments (of all places, local, county, state, AND federal,) just who exactly they work for.

As far as you worrying about the mayor and councilmen getting their "foot in the door," they already have it there. We are voting NO to overturn their decision. This is already a law, and if it is not voted down, then the law becomes effective Apr. 8th. Clear as mud? haha.

"Are we willing to go to jail for our rights?" I'm just speaking for myself, but... yes!

"They've already taken the ten commandments away. What else is left?"

Ohh, there are lots of neat things. Non-diet sodas, like New York is pushing for. Energy drinks seem popular, and they are already on CAE's radar. Saturated fats are a popular ban target in CA (although they are trying to legalize marijuana). Alcohol is always a popular one, although a lot of that has died down since prohibition. Let's see, what else. Ohh, Grand Theft Auto 4, individually wrapped cigars (so they can't be stuffed with pot, of course), incandescent light bulbs, plastic grocery bags, toe-in surfing, and smiling for a driver's license. All of the above mentioned items were banned, or were attempted to be banned, in the US in 2008.

March 27, 2009 at 3:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

BabyGirlSissy (anonymous) says...

crank
I teach my children very well thank you. They know to stand up for their beliefs and not to let peer pressure be a factor when making their choices.
They know not to let people push them around no matter what the case may be. And to fight for their right to a FAIR hearing. I sure wouldnt let you teach my children. Or they would never make it in life. REAL LIFE not the world that you live in. A world that isnt full of roses. One thats what you make it and is hard and cruel. That is the world today. My children are taught very well. They know right from wrong and my 11 year old says YOUR WRONG!!!
Its bad when a child can see your lies. But you say your not lieing. Funny huh.
VOTE NO APRIL 7TH

March 27, 2009 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sassyone (anonymous) says...

Im not giving up, Don't get me wrong. I'm still voting NO. No matter what ban is every out there, life will eventually be how it was described in "Demolition Man", Everything that is not good for you is bad, hence Illegal. That included contact sports and meat. Come one America, what the hell is wrong with this country???

March 28, 2009 at 2:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

BabyGirlSissy;

You notice the bars ole cracky goes too since she boycotted mine are all smoking allowed.
As bad as that ole SHS is why not The Blind or The Noose?
Crack does need the government to make her decisions for her, she can't seem to keep from harming herself. MOST OTHERS on here seem to be able to make their own decisions.
Steve

March 28, 2009 at 6:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

VOTE EARLY
VOTE NO
CHOOSE WHERE YOU GO.

March 28, 2009 at 6:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bdk (anonymous) says...

Vote "NO" and protect our rights and freedom to make our own choices. Many businesses and employers have already chosen not to allow smoking. Let them continue to make their choices, and let patrons and employees also have the right to make theirs

March 28, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

sassyone posted, "Im not giving up, Don't get me wrong. I'm still voting NO."

That's the spirit! Lots of people have sacrificed their lives to protect your right to vote. Don't let them down.

"Come one America, what the hell is wrong with this country???"

My opinion? There are far too many people who have become complacent. Lazy, for lack of a better word. If it can't be reduced to a 30-second sound-bite during the commercial breaks on Dancing With The Stars and The Biggest Loser, they don't want to hear it. People have become accustomed to allowing others to think for them rather than thinking for themselves. They've agreed to allow their liberties to be whittled away bit by bit, "for the children".

How many people have actually read any of the actual studies rather than listening to someone's interpretation of them?

How many people are going to make up their minds based on the radio sound-bites? How many are going to vote based on a newspaper ad?

How many people aren't going to vote at all because they are willing to let someone else decide for them?

March 28, 2009 at 11:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

BISMARCK - North Dakota House representatives Monday voted overwhelmingly against a bill proposing to ban tobacco sales in the state.

The measure, which would make selling or using tobacco products except for using it for relgious purposes misdemeanors, failed by an 88-4 vote.

The bill would have made it a crime to sell or use tobacco in North Dakota, with sellers facing a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. The bill labeled smoking, chewing or using smokeless tobacco as a less severe crime, punishable by 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

GF sponsor

The bill's sole sponsor, Grand Forks Republican Rep. Mike Grosz, said he was disappointed by Monday's vote.

But "it did get a fair day in the sun and generated a lot of discussion," said Grosz, a member of the House Finance and Taxation Committee, which heard the bill last week.

Before the bill went to a vote on the floor, Grosz told his fellow representatives that tobacco costs the state close to 1,000 lives every year and $351 million in medical and productivity costs. Tobacco taxes are expected to bring $39.7 million to North Dakota's treasury during the state's current two-year budget period, which ends in June.

"It seems the only gainers from allowing the use of this product are the big tobacco companies and groups, such as the government and organizations, which tax the product or sue the companies," he said.

Grosz said he would vote against all other measures on tobacco, including a tax increase, because trying to reduce tobacco use through those measures is like "putting a bandage on a severed leg."

Gov. John Hoeven's proposed two-year budget for North Dakota state government includes an increase in tobacco taxes, which would increase the levy on a pack of cigarettes from 44 cents to 79 cents.

Passed committee

Rep. Wes Belter, R-Leonard, chairman of the Finance and Taxation Committee, said he decided to vote no on the floor Monday because he believe prohibition would drive smoking underground.

His committee heard the bill last week and recommended a "do pass" on the bill by a 9-4 vote. Six of the nine committee members who voted yes on the bill changed their vote on the floor Monday.

Belter told the House that committee members were frustrated last week with the testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, including the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association.

There's no evidence banning tobacco would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented, the groups argued. The ban also could take away certain funding forthese groups for tobacco control programs.

READ THE LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS PEOPLE!

March 28, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

THIS SUPPOSEDLY HAPPENED IN 2003, i'M GOING TO DO SOME CHECKING.

March 28, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Amazing! Can't believe the groups speaking AGAINST that. As always, follow the dollars and the true story will come out....

March 28, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Wonder if our senator Barnett would propose this law for Kansas? Or is he making too much money from big-pharma?

And I checked N. Dakota's website and it is indeed a fact.

March 28, 2009 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

olddog (anonymous) says...

Crack and the CAE will like this one!!!!

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Support our Troops

Please help support our troops overseas.
Send your gifts of Copenhagen, tobacco, cigarettes, cigars, or just your well wishes to any of these fine boys.
They will share with others in need of a "little bit of home" right now.

http://military.mychildsafe.org/

Please help support our troops overseas.

Vote NO!

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

March 28, 2009 at 5:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

biscuitboy (anonymous) says...

I'm heartened by all the wonderful VOTE NO comments that have been posted following publication of my letter. It makes me hopeful that we can win this thing April 7th. But the pro-ban cadre will pull out all the stops to muscle this thing thru as they have so many other things to protect "their" town in the past....things like where you can park on your own property, and what furniture you can place on your porch. the most important thing to do now is get out the vote. VOTE NO....NO>>>>NO!!!! Preston Monroe.

March 28, 2009 at 5:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

Way up there in this thread, someone mentioned that "we were not meant to breath smoke". It seems to me, creating fire was an even bigger, and better trick than inventing the wheel. ALL of our ancestors survived in smokey caves for thousands of years, then smokey cabins. And here we are. Wood smoke and grilling are HIGHER in the PCHS chemicals that DO cause cancer . You might consider that, when you're at a restuarant with a grill. Also, burning candles are very big producers of the PCHS chemicals. I have decided, after 54 years of living, that I like candles, and bonfires, and steaks on the grill. My choice, NOT YOURS. VOTE NO and CHOSE where you go.

March 28, 2009 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

olddog (anonymous) says...

Ventilation not Legislation

On November 15, 2005 when the Hennepin County Minnesota commission decided to explore amending the smoking ban that has devastated so many establishments. Testimony was given by one individual who claimed to be a mechanical ventilation expert, hired incidentally by the smoking ban proponents. After his testimony claiming there was no way to ventilate secondhand smoke, Commissioner Penny Steele asked a great question:

"Isn't indoor charcoal and wood-fired grilling a popular trend in bars & restaurants these days?....and isn't inhaling those fumes indoors potentially deadly? " (note how similar charcoal, wood, and tobacco smoke are as far as hazards....in fact wood and charcoal contain far more hazardous chemicals)

Expert reply: "....um, yeah"

Commissioner Steele: "Well, why isn't anybody dying in the restaurants from the cooking smoke?"

Expert: "Because they have special ventilation....."

Steele: "Couldn't establishment owners use a similar type of ventilation to also render secondhand smoke harmless?"

Expert: "uh, well, I suppose they could......."

And thus the above exchange killed this "expert's" testimony, along with the rationale for smoking bans altogether.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2...

March 28, 2009 at 6:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

olddog;

I have been saying for some time now that woodsmoke, charcoal smoke, charcoal lighter fluid, and most biomass smoke/shs carries the same exact carcinogenic indredients in it that tobacco smoke/shs has in it and even posted the facts and figures to prove it. However the smoking ban supporters dismiss these kinds of smoke/shs as O.K., because they serve a purpose and are necessary and tobacco smoke/shs as serving no purpose and is unnecessary !
And I have asked them numeous times, Exactly who gave them the right to decide what served a purpose or served no purpose and what was necessary or unnecessary and to whom it served a purpose or no purpose and to whom it was necessary or unnecessary ! And I have not received an answer yet !

If you as citizens of Emporia do not want someone dictating to you what serves a purpose or serves no purpose and is what necessary or unnecessary to you, when that decision is exclusively yours and only yours ! This is not a health issue, but a contol issue and help put a stop to the control radicals. VOTE NO !

March 28, 2009 at 8:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...

Gazette PLEASE GIVE THIS TOPIC A REST ALREADY!
When the votes come in maybe the few who keeps going on and on and on and on and on and on anad ON about this crap will realize that the MAJORITY of emporians dont really give a hoot one way or the other about the subject. Thats why only about 25% vote in the first place! Please give this smoking ban BS a rest already!!!

March 28, 2009 at 8:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Why do people continue to read these forums if they don't like reading them? Why do people keep going into smokey environments when they are so afraid of smoke. If we have so many mentally challenged people in this town why don't I see more short buses driving around?

March 28, 2009 at 9:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...

seriouslyfolks, I have not been reading the articles, I dont have to anymore, All one needs to do is scan the titles and he/she knows everything thats being said in them, that was my point!

March 28, 2009 at 9:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I hear ya LifeGoesOn just another week or so.

March 28, 2009 at 9:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

rabblerouser (anonymous) says...

to protect all workers from second hand smoke

Heather Crowe wanted to be the last person to die from second hand smoke in the work-place.

We want to help her.

In 2002, Heather's doctors told her she had inoperable lung cancer. They told her that her cancer resulted from her working for many years in smoke-filled bars and restaurants.

Because she became ill as a result of workplace exposure, Heather filed a claim with the Ontario Workers Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) for 'worker's compensation.'

WSIB accepted Heather's claim for compensation. They agreed with her doctors that her cancer was caused by second hand smoke at work.

After learning she had cancer from second hand smoke at work, Heather planned for a better future for other workers. She travelled across Canada, promoting changes to municipal, provincial and federal law to better protect workers from second-hand smoke. She allowed her story to be told in government advertisements and news stories.

You can read about her campaigns in "Heather's work".

Heather died at 8:00 p.m. on May 22, 2006.

Vote Yes

March 29, 2009 at 8:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

Well, finally. After months of asking for a single case of a single person dying from exposure to 2nd hand smoke, we apparently have one.

Of the hundreds of millions of people who have been exposed to 2nd hand smoke over they years, we have one.

I do have some questions about this particular case.

It's a shame that she died of lung cancer, however I've done a lot of looking around on the web to try and learn more.

Exactly who said she contracted cancer from exposure to 2nd hand smoke? I found where the Ontario Workplace Safety & Insurance Board ruled in her favor when she sued for workers compensation. I found lots of anit-smoking activist sites making that claim. But I haven't found a single medical doctor's testimony saying she contracted cancer from exposure to 2nd hand smoke.

Do you think it's odd that not one single medical doctor has gone on record saying he (or she) is treating Heather for lung cancer due to exposure to 2nd hand smoke?

So who exacly is saying she got cancer from exposure to 2nd hand smoke? Can anyone find any interviews with her physicians? Names or statements of those treating her?

Who is saying her cancer was caused by exposure to 2nd hand smoke?

March 29, 2009 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

Once upon a time, in a land called Emporia, there lived many happy, and diverse people. There was room for all kinds of folks. Rich and poor, fat and skinny, mouthy and shy, Catholics and Baptists. Well, one day, some people came to town and brought bags of gold with them. They told Emporians that they could get some of this gold, IF they would work for them, but they had to do and say everything that they were told. You see, these new people wanted to own Emporia. And since they did that survey, they thought that Emporia would be easily bought off. So they started the meanness, and turning neighbor against neighbor. They used the gold to buy the newspaper and radio and billboards. Since the news was getting so much of the gold, THEY did not question the tactics, or motives of the newcomers. Unfortunately for them, some scrappy locals stood up and fought back. Pretty soon the people who did not care about the rights of fellow Emporians before, started to see through the viciousness of the people who wanted to own the town. They wanted peace back. No one was bothering others until the gold showed up. So Emporians lined up to vote out the small group of gold spenders. Now maybe they won't all live happily ever after, who does? But maybe they won't have to worry about one small group forcing others to live by their rules for a while. But forever after, Emporians would be on guard against those who say they are taking over for our good.

March 29, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

You do notice that when the ant-rights people start losing their arguments, or get GANGED UP ON, they stop posting or resort to jokes

March 29, 2009 at 4:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justamarine (anonymous) says...

CRACK you posted:

Posted by crackinsack (anonymous) on March 27, 2009 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BabyGirlSissy,
Used to go to Town Royal before the owner was very unpleasant to me for no reason other than we had a difference of opinion. I now go to Beer 30, J-Mo's, and occasionally places like Mallards or the Purple Duck. (and of course Bruff’s and other restaurants)

Why do you do you go to these places that allow smoking? Is it for the atmosphere,or the friendship? Or is it because your an alcoholic? I am worried about you, I don't want to see you hurt yourself so remember put your helmet on before you leave the house and get on the short bus and it will take you where you need to go.

March 29, 2009 at 8:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

justamarine,

haha, too funny man!

Crack,

You might want to look into some counseling man. Not just for the alcohol, but the obvious crack addiction too.

March 29, 2009 at 9:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )