madpoet (anonymous) says...

I agree SHS can be unhealthy. That is not the issue here. The ordinance as it's worded now is way too restrictive. If it was just for restaurants, I would be for it. Kids go into restaurants and you generally spend less than an hour inside. A smoker can hold out that long, I think. But when it turned out to be almost everywhere and 10 (or is it 20?) feet from the door, that went too far. Private landowners have a right to conduct their business as they see fit. None of the businesses affected are places people HAVE to go into. What about the companies who have gone to the expense to put in a smoking room so they don't have people loitering outside puffing away? I find it tacky to see people huddled outside smoking even if they don't leave their butts on the ground. I'd much rather they be inside out of sight in their own little haven. In the Winfield Walmart, they had a smoking room sealed off and with separate ventilation. The ban they adopted outlawed even that. They have to scurry outside to smoke now. Now that makes sense! I would vote NO if I could. I live in the county so have no vote. I just hope enough Emporians will vote NO for me.

March 27, 2009 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

crackinsack posted, "As someone else on here posted, the burden of proof is on the pro-SHS crew to show SHS is healthy."

This is a clear demonstration of the backwards mindset of many who support the ban.

If I accused crackinsack of being a murderer (the way many are saying 2nd hand smoke kills), would the burden of proof be on crackinsack to prove his innocence or would the burden of proof be on me, the one making the accusation?

If I made the accusation without a shred of evidence, should crackinsack sit in jail until he proves his innocence?

There are those who are saying the air in some Emporia businesses is unhealthy, yet they offer not a shred of evidence. Should we implement a ban under these circumstances?

I say no, and I call upon those who support the ban to have the air quality in any Emporia business tested to see if it fails to meet the Federal clean air standards.

You are the ones making the accusations why are you afraid to test the air to prove your case?

March 27, 2009 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

madpoet (anonymous) says...

You can't prove a negative. That's science.

And I love your analogy MisterO! Maybe we could try it...

March 27, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

You can try out a smoke free establishment any time you want. No need for a ban for you to see what it's like. Just a little common sense. If you want to be in more healthy environments then by all means be in more healthy environments. With the current restrictions on tobacco and most places being voluntarily nonsmoking it is super easy to avoid shs so those that feel they are being harmed by it do so voluntarily. It hasn't always been so easy for the nonsmoker to avoid shs but it is now. We have come to a point where nonsmokers have many many options for where they can go and enjoy a nice meal and drink(If they are a drinker) with their family and friends and smokers also have a few places that they can go and enjoy a smoke with their buddies. This seems to me to be a good compromise that was brought about by our free market. The demand for more nonsmoking establishments has been rising and the business owners have supplied them. There still is a demand for places to go and use tobacco, which is a legal product, and some business owners are filling that demand. No one is being forced against their will to go into these places with smoke in the air. To make the choice to go in there when you know it may harm you is no different than making the decision to super size your fries. You know it may be bad for you but you make the decision anyway. The simplest solution is, if you don't want to be around smoke go to a nonsmoking place. There are more choices for those that don't want to be around smoke than there are for people who want to smoke.

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 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

SHS has been proven to be unhealthy. The burden lies on the businesses and/or individuals who say that it is not healthy to prove that it is safe. If you are so sure your air is safe....prove it!

I can't wait until April 7th.

A YES VOTE WILL MAKE ALL EMPORIANS HEALTHIER!

March 27, 2009 at 2:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

allintogether (anonymous) says...

I want to drink a beer with MisterO!

Vote NO! If you didn't register to vote, you forgo your voice!

March 27, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

crackinsack posted, "It is commonly excepted knowledge that SHS is harmful. Since the pro-SHS movement here in town claims SHS is not harmful, I think they need to prove it. There have already been tons of studies done that show SHS or ETS is harmful."

This is another lie. What is commonly accepted and indicated by studies is that exposure to *certain levels* of the chemicals in 2nd hand smoke and ETS may be harmful.

That is why there are Federal laws (see the table of OSHA's permissible levels of exposure here: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/pel/recognit...)

crackinsack also said, "In other words, we have already presented our case beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless you can produce some evidence that SHS is not harmful, the verdict is guilty."

There are probably hundreds of people reading this that are thanking their lucky stars that you are not their attorney. Your logic and your 'case' is laughable. Neither would last half a day in court.

March 27, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Crack,

Go ahead and WEAR that t-shirt to the polls. Maybe it will confuse the retard standing behind you into actually voting NO.

March 27, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

I think we've all made enough spelling/grammar errors to make our HS English teachers cry. Actually, haha...

Hey create, have we made you cry yet? I know you HAVE to cringe when you read some of this... haha.

March 27, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck posted, "SHS has been proven to be unhealthy."

No, specific quantities of certain chemicals in 2nd hand smoke are unhealthy. OSHA has determined safe exposure levels of those chemicals (see OSHA's PEL limit charts here: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/pel/recognit...)

He also posted, "The burden lies on the businesses and/or individuals who say that it is not healthy to prove that it is safe."

Once again, no. That's now how justice works in a democracy. Those making the accusation of a wrong-doing are the ones responsible for proving their accusations.

slvrnblck continues with, "If you are so sure your air is safe....prove it!"

I don't need to (again, you are making the accusation, the burden of proof is on you), however...

To any business owner in Emporia: Have you ever had a patron die as a result of exposure to the air in your business? Please say so here.

To any doctor in Emporia: Have you ever treated a patient who's health problems are a direct result of exposure to 2nd hand smoke in any Emporia business? Please respond here.

To any citizen in Emporia: Are any of you suffering health problems that your doctor say were caused by exposure to 2nd hand smoke in any Emporia business? Please respond here.

And finally, "A YES VOTE WILL MAKE ALL EMPORIANS HEALTHIER!"

And decidedly less free.

March 27, 2009 at 4:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

my time to be sensitive and politcally correct is long gone. I lost that back in Aug. or Sept. when this rights ban was introduced.

March 27, 2009 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

gold66801 (anonymous) says...

Forget the DAM BAN outlaw the cigs.

March 27, 2009 at 4:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wyse_guy (anonymous) says...

Crack, isn't it about time for you to get off the time clock. Thank GOD.

Has anyone noticed the gazette hasn't done any online chats lately? Maybe they could have one before April 7th with the CLAP.

VOTE NO to this ridiculous ban.

March 27, 2009 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

crack
you said to me
“The demand for more nonsmoking establishments has been rising”
Yeah, because people are wising-up about SHS. Get with the program!"

I have said it before that I don't smoke. A decision I made for my self. More and more people are making the same decision. The market is reflecting that. Let the market take it's natural course. There are more places to go that are non smoking than smoking so it is very easy to avoid shs. It hasn't always been so easy for the nonsmoker to avoid shs but it is now. We have come to a point where nonsmokers have many many options for where they can go and enjoy a nice meal and drink(If they are a drinker) with their family and friends in a smoke free environment and smokers also have a few places that they can go and enjoy a smoke with their buddies. This seems to me to be a good compromise that was brought about by our free market.

I have presented a simple solution to the problem without government intervention and it has been rejected 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 5:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

This entire issue is so bogus and reeking of deception that it insults the intelligence of all Emporians. It has litte or nothing to do with the health of Emporia's citizens.

CAE social reformers and brain-washed bloggers like Crackinsack continually spew unsubstantiated or false "scientific" data on the mortal danger of second-hand smoke yet can't produce a single incident where a person became ill, yet alone died, from it.

They also claim the ban is to protect "the children". What is that about? No where in this city are my children exposed to first-hand, second-hand, or any kind of smoke, unless I take them there.

Smoking is already prohibited in every public building in town other than a VERY few restaurants and a few bars, so just where is it are our kids and ol' Cracky are getting exposed to all this deadly smoke?

It's time for the citizens of Emporia to recognize this smoking ban for what it is: an attempt by a small judgmental jury of self-perceived superior social reformers who want to take away your rights and freedoms in order to ensure that you conform to their view of proper social behavior.

Emporia already has smoking regulations in effect. This new ban goes WAY over the line and would do far more harm than good. It would cause personal hardships, loss of jobs, and tax revenues. It would hurt local business owners and possibly put them out of business. It would take away personal rights and ability to make one's own decisions. It would force the elderly and disabled into icy cold streets to have a smoke with a cold beer. It sends a young woman into a dark ally or parking lot to partake of a legal product. It effectively tells visitors to our city who choose to smoke that they, and their money, are not welcome here.

This ban would make every motel room in Emporia a non-smoking room. A bit discrimatory, don't you think? And how does making every motel room in town smoke-free make our children healthier? It doesn't, because this ban isn't about health. It is all about control.

Don't be fooled by the deceptive double-talk of the smoking ban advocates. The only lives they intend to enhance with this ban are their own. Are these the people you want controlling your life, making your decisions, and dictating your laws?

Me either. Vote "NO" on April 7.

March 27, 2009 at 5:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Quite articulate, Bj, and I agree!!!

I have often wondered throughout this entire campaign if someone in the CAE group wasn't somehow insulted by a bar owner in this town at one time. Their defensive stance is so strong that it appears to be a vendetta. Either that or there's an awful lot of money involved to be lost or gained somewhere. I've never seen an issue defended as strongly as I see the CAE people doing with this one.

It's a control issue. Simple. Vote NO.

March 27, 2009 at 5:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

I agree with you, Create. I smell retribution, or distribution... of money. This can't possibly be a campaign for the improved health and welfare of all mankind. Smoking is already prohibitied in every retail, public, and government building in the city. More than 90% of restaurants are smoke free. The few that aren't can be easily avoided by choice. 80% of motel rooms are smoke free.

So what is left? Bars and clubs. Like you, Create, I smell a rat. And this rat is spelled CAE.

Vote for common sense, freedom, choice, jobs, and fairness.

Vote "NO" on April7.

March 27, 2009 at 6:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tbluma (anonymous) says...

I agree Bj, but you left out the the home businesses that will be affected also. You are absolutely right about the control issue, that's all they want. My warning is to the people of the county, if this thing does pass walters is sure to try to blow it through from her throne in the court house for the whole county. Control freaks like absolute control not just partial.
I just thank God that even though the business I run is in the county that I live in town so I can vote NO.

March 27, 2009 at 6:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsenseemporia (anonymous) says...

Statement from Phillip Morris, maker of Marlboro cigerattes (http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/cms...)

Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.

Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke when deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where children are concerned and adults should avoid smoking cigarettes around them.

We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate cigarette smoking in public places. We also believe that where cigarette smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers.
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

March 27, 2009 at 7:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

commonsenseemporia
Is shs unhealthy for people who avoid it and aren't exposed to it? The way things are right now it is very easy to avoid. There's no real need for the ban if those that are deathly afraid of shs would simply choose to go to one of the many many nonsmoking places. That is some common sense right there. I don't care who you are.

I have presented a simple solution to the problem without government intervention and it has been rejected 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 7:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

If you sell Avon or Amway out of your house and ANYONE comes into your home for a business reason, you are affected by this ban. NO SMOKING 24 hrs. a day 7 days a week, IN YOUR HOME. don't let anyone bull __it you it is in the ordinance.
STEVE CORBIN
VOTE NO
PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS!

March 27, 2009 at 7:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

commonsenseemporia posted, "the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke when deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present,"

Isn't that what we've been saying all along? The public should be making their own decisions whether or not to patronize businesses that allow smoking?

No ban necessary.

Vote No.

March 27, 2009 at 8:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wyse_guy (anonymous) says...

Tell a lie long enough some people might believe it, is that why crack is on all the blogs so much and it seems like walters is on the radio every ten minutes. If there going to scam everybody about the so called facts now why wouldnt they lie about the votes at the poles? I dont trust any of them if they want something bad enough. They have done nothing to prove they deserve trust or respect. The entire group of cae and thier followers remind me of Jim Jones preaching lies and deciet to recruit more followers thinking only of themselves.This is not about health or clean air its all about a power trip from a group of busybodys who want to run your lives.So if your one of thier sheep then vote yes if you want to keep your rights now and for what ever they try to pull next then vote no.

March 27, 2009 at 8:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

pencilguy (anonymous) says...

most people wouldn't let others smoke in their house anyway corbin. What if i went and said " People aren't going to be able to murder in your house. This will affect business because it affects their rights!" Stop being a pighead.

March 27, 2009 at 8:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

pencilguy posted, "most people wouldn't let others smoke in their house anyway corbin. What if i went and said " People aren't going to be able to murder in your house. This will affect business because it affects their rights!" Stop being a pighead."

Two words for you: reading comprehension

Get some.

March 27, 2009 at 9:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

A REPLY TO UNCOMMONSENSE IN EMPORIA;

This whole issue boils down to 1 (one) issue.

Do you want Teresa Walters and Bobbie Sauder (& STEVE), telling you how to live your life? Anyone who votes yes, must think we should all emulate those lifestyles.

I have voted NO
And I'll Choose Where to Go

March 27, 2009 at 9:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Emporia,

When you vote April 7th. Remember this name! Steve Sauder.

Vote early
VOTE NO

Corbin

March 27, 2009 at 9:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

smogman (anonymous) says...

murder and SHS, now thats a stretch, even for a penhead

March 27, 2009 at 9:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

brightliner (anonymous) says...

Has anyone here even read the ordinance?
It appears that the only private residences where smoking is restricted is one's in which "childcare, adult daycare, or health care" occurs.

Section 8. WHERE SMOKING IS NOT REGULATED: PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
PLACES
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article to the contrary, the following areas shall not be subject to the smoking restrictions of this Article:
a. Private offices where the public is not normally invited or regularly enters.
b. Private residences, except when used as a childcare, adult day care, health care facility.
An existing retail establishment whose primary business is the sale of tobacco products and new retail establishments whose primary business is

March 27, 2009 at 11:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

Where does one go to vote early? Also I think the green signs CAE has all over including one sorority house on merchant are dumb and misleading. I want to take a can of yellow spray to the one I have to walk by every day.
I wonder if one can charge them for presenting false information and scaring the the public, I have not seen any where that second hand smoke kills, like the signs say

Vote No April 7th or Sooner
Dont Tread on Me

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

methusla (anonymous) says...

commonsenseemporia
In the following statement by Phillip Morris,

"We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate cigarette smoking in public places."

Does the word " regulate " as used in this context carry the same meaning as the word " ban " ?
Doesn't the current smoking restiction ordinance that is now in affect already " regulate " smoking, per say ?
Would you personally support an outdoor, private vehicle or private residence smoking ban ?

March 27, 2009 at 11:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Where are the studies about how healthy the community will be after a smoking ban divides it? Lines have been drawn and friendships have been weakened as not all people are capable of hearing dissenting opinion, much less of lively and passionate debate, without starting to dislike the other person. Neighbors with already weak tolerances of each other are turning spiteful toward each other. Business owners are feeling under attack by the very town they need to have a friendly relationship with for survival. Grudges and hard feelings are being formed to be harbored for years to come. How healthy is this proposed ban? So far, it seems pretty unhealthy to me.

March 28, 2009 at 1:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

BRIGHTLINER:

If you read section 5 of the ordinance it states:

"Smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed places of employment within the city of Emporia. It shall be the responsibility of employers to comply with the provisions of this ordinance."
So this section seems to contradict section 8.
BAD ordinance
BAD BAD Law
VOTE NO

March 28, 2009 at 7:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

jmc, go to courthouse 1st. floor.

VOTE EARLY
VOTE NO

And don't mess with the green signs.
Steve

March 28, 2009 at 7:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jmcmannis (anonymous) says...

I wont mess with the green signs tempting as it is. Thanks for the info steve

March 28, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

rbow, I'm thinking you (and I'm suprised) listen to the pundits a little too much. I'm referring to your view against the coal plants in Western Kansas. I keep thinking about how my son (who used to play soccer) fell to the side of the field once, regurgitating this black stuff as he lay exhausted. Well, maybe not, but we do get over one half of our energy from coal at this time. Let's put a stop to that and see how much our energy rates go up
Also: Once the new laws are passed, they will NEVER be repealed. They are even planning to REGULATE livestock flatulence, also known as FARTS (yesterday, a volcano erupted in Alaska spewing forth more greenhouse gasses than have been generated in HISTORY by humans), requiring carbon permits from livestock producers. They will pass this right through to you in the cost of the meat and poultry your family needs. How absurd. It has NOTHING to do with the climate, which the governments have NO ABILITY to control; it is about taxes and regulatory control in disguise.

I am thinking about how you love new laws. Well, join the greenies.

March 28, 2009 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

oxon,

What, where,what?

I thought we were talking about a smoking ban in Emporia?
Steve

March 28, 2009 at 4:32 p.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!
This happened in 2003

March 28, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

NOW THAT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!

March 28, 2009 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

olddog (anonymous) says...

The Ten Biggest Lies about Smoke & Smoking

By Robert Hayes Halfpenny

THE LIE: Cigarette smoke and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) or Second Hand Smoke (SHS) Causes cancer.

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules...

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

Failed bans .....

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules...

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

Cigarette Taxes in Kansas

Tax News

ALERT: Right now, politicians in Kansas want to increase the cigarette tax. Now is the time to take action. Contact your elected officials today and make your voice heard:

http://www.nocigtax.com/tax-facts/sta...

````````````````````````````````````````````````
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-n...

``````````````````````````````````````````````````
Private Business should be left alone!
Vote NO!

March 28, 2009 at 5:08 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 5:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

olddog (anonymous) says...

Wouldn't the American Legion & The Eagles be considered a private club? They require memberships and fees so are they excluded in this ban?

March 28, 2009 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Olddog,

No, they are not excluded in this ban. Just one more reason to vote NO.

March 28, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

rbow, Sorry to be on the side track. I do support the "NO" vote, but I find your siding with Sebelius' green power play disengenous. I don't have your email address and am too busy to stop by during business hours when you are in your occupancy to unload. I do get tired of the government overstepping it's bounds, whether it be on smoking, so called global warming (cap and trade), horrendous spending, or other unnecessary intrusions and your defending the attack on Kansas' proposed coal plants suprised me.
I would add that I resent commonsenseemporia entering our schools to preach their agenda to children and not pointing out their attack on individual rights is wrong. It is important to point out the health effects of smoking to school children, but to force their viewpoints using our school system is not right.

March 28, 2009 at 6:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

olddog (anonymous) says...

100 bars and restaurants put out of business in less than two years since Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Bloomington, MN. enacted smoking bans

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

1,000 -2,000 US bars & restaurants closed after various local smoking bans were enacted.
Lawmakers can be assured smoking bans were the cause of the worlds economic crisis

Smoking bans increased unemployment at a time when our economy was booming......but eliminating one hundred thousand+ hospitality jobs.....eventually has a negative trickle down effect on other industries. IE 100,000 unemployed hospitality workers stopped buying houses, or worse had their homes foreclosed upon, stopped buying cars, stopped buying computers, TVs etc., then the home-builders, automakers, electronic manufacturers, realtors, etc. started losing their jobs because of the effect from the 100,000+ unemployed bar and restaurant workers.......and the snowball races downhill.

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

Vote NO!!

March 28, 2009 at 6:44 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 8:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Another heart-wrenching story of death due to" her many years of working in smoke filled bars & restaurants" In Canada, home of socialized medical care. Let's see the doctors need a reason to treat and be paid for that treatment by the government, so they came up with "many years of working in smoke filled bars and restaurants" Not shs according to the above. Could it have been caused by the chemicals she used to keep those workplaces clean?
Could it have been a pre-excisting health issue? Could it have been all those char-broiled burgers and steaks being cooked in the kitchen? Did anyone do actual air-quality tests on her home and the businesses she actually worked in? Using someones death from cancer, especially in a case like the above to promote the taking away of all of our rights is despicable.

Please read my above on March,28 @4:35
to get the real story>

March 29, 2009 at 9:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

Well, I typically don't cross-post in threads, but since you rabblerouser did, I guess I can, too.

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 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

type in heather crowe and read all of the posts and you decide.

www.geocities.com/defendliberty2004/h...

March 29, 2009 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"It seems very odd that, if you are in Lambton Ontario - 5000 people will die from second-hand smoke this year, but if you hop on a plane and go to Calgary Alberta - suddenly, only 3000 people will die from SHS. If you fly back to Ottawa and hang around the Health Canada buildings, the number of dead will magically drop to 1000/year. We should probably all move to B.C. because, standing on the healing soil of B.C. causes the national "death by SHS" rate to drop down to 500/year. No matter where you are standing in our country, however, not one of these alleged fatal victims of SHS can be found in your local morgue - with an autopsy report certifying that to be their cause of death, attached to them. They exist only on the pages of epidemiological estimating reports."

This is my favorite part...

March 30, 2009 at 12:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

This is going to be great (can't sleep again)!

Secondhand smoke has been estimated to cause 46,000 (ranging from 22,700 to 69,600) deaths per year from heart disease in adult nonsmokers. http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=...

We now know that 53,800 people die every year from secondhand smoke exposure. http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.p...

About 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults. http://www.tobacco-facts.info/second_...

If current smoking patterns continue, 6.4 million people currently younger than 18 will die prematurely from a tobacco-related disease. http://www.tobacco-facts.info/second_...

Based on the assumption that passive smoke exposure boosts heart disease risk by 26 percent to 65 percent, for 1999-2004 Lightwood and his colleagues peg the number of heart disease deaths a year due to passive smoking at 21,800 to 75,100 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28300406/ (side note--I hate to tell them that 21,800 to 75,100 is most decidedly NOT "pegged"-- Matt)

about 3,000 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/con...

Then you have this website, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?... that has a listing off all the "secondhand smoke workers compensation cases and deaths"... All FOURTEEN of them...from around the WORLD!

March 30, 2009 at 1:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

All of these people, between 3,000 and 6.4 million, who have, or soon will, die from SHS, and The CLean Air People (The CLAP) can't even name 3 US citizens who have died as a direct result of SHS? Here's an even better question... Since this only concerns the City of Emporia, name 3 people from Emporia, that have died as a direct result of second hand smoke. Name 3.

Matt

P.S.-- CHARLESTON - A Kanawha County judge will have to allow two men to testify as expert witnesses in a lawsuit filed by a Logan County man who alleges he got food poisoning after eating a Wendy's hamburger. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-14092...

P.S.S. -- Two Oregon Wendy’s restaurants were determined to be the source of an E. coli outbreak that devastated families. Children developed HUS, and were on kidney dialysis. Marler Clark represented several individuals and the families of individuals sickened in the outbreak.
http://www.about-ecoli.com/ecoli_outb...

March 30, 2009 at 1:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justamarine (anonymous) says...

We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

“The Saint Crispin’s Day Speech”

This day is called the feast of Crispin:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispin.

He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispin'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.

And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.

Familiar in his mouth as household words
RBOW, SERIOUSLYFOLKS and JOSIESBAR,
JMCMANNIS and BJNEMP, AND THE OTHERS,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.

This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispin shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:

And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

-- Henry V, Act IV, Scene III
-- By William Shakespeare
IT'S TIME TO RALLY THE TROOPS AND ATTACK THE POLLS AND VOTE NO ON THIS STUPID BAN..VOTE NO PEOPLE

March 30, 2009 at 1:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Then walk we forth, even to the market-place,
And, waving our red weapons o'er our heads,
Let's all cry 'Peace, freedom and liberty!'

With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war!

--Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene I

March 30, 2009 at 2:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justamarine (anonymous) says...

I like that one also

March 30, 2009 at 2:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )