madpoet (anonymous) says...

"Separation of church and state," crack? For one, that has nothing to do with this letter, for another that is from a judge's opinion, not the Constitution. All the US Constitution says is that the government can not force any one religion on the people OR prevent the people from worshipping as they see fit. There are laws preventing religions from harming others but otherwise the government is supposed to stay out of it. I firmly believe that banning any Christian symbols from public places infringes on my right of religious freedom. About Matt's letter, he owns a business that you can enter or not as you see fit. He's not "harming" you if you don't choose to enter his business. As he's sunk untold $ into his business, pays taxes etc on it, he should be allowed to run it in the way he thinks will be profitable. I don't like smoke but just avoid those places that are filled with smoke. That it my right. I hope if the ban fails that local businesses will adopt "smoking allowed " signs to avoid surprises. Last time I went out to eat, it was at Applebee's. They did not ask us for a smoking preference so we thought they were nonsmoking. We weren't too pleased to have a couple of people light up at the bar we were seated next to. Next time we'll be sure to ask to be seated away from the bar. But we didn't pitch a fit, just lived with it and made a mental note for next time.

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

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

madpoet--

Just and FYI. Matt no longer owns a business, it is closed.

March 27, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

madpoet--

Just an FYI. Matt no longer owns a business, it is closed.

March 27, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

madpoet (anonymous) says...

SHS only harms you when you choose to be exposed to it. I assume no one is forcing you to go into any of these businesses. Fried foods are bad for you too. Are we going to ban that next? Or sugar? Let's close down Braum's and Dairy Queen since they sell fattening food. These are NOT public places they are talking about. And I bet I would be exposed to more shs by pushing all the smokers outside than I am now. I just don't go into those places with a lot of smoke. I do walk down the sidewalk past some of them, though. It's NOT a health issue so much as a personal property right issue.

I did not realize Matt no longer owned a business. More power to him for writing this letter then when it no longer impacts him as a business owner.

March 27, 2009 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Here are some interesting quotes I've found that, in my opinion, seem to explain the CAE's mindset:

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."

"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."

"It is not truth that matters, but victory."

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach."

"As soon as by one's own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one's own right is laid."

"Great liars are also great magicians."

"Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice."

"I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few."

FYI, every one of these quotes can be attributed to Adolph Hitler.

March 27, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

madpoet

You are 100% correct!
"SHS only harms you when you choose to be exposed to it."
Avoidance takes care of the problem. The vast majority of businesses cater to people who prefer a nonsmoking environment. It hasn't always been this easy for the nonsmoker to find a smoke free place to go but it is very easy right now.

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 2:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"SHS only harms you when you choose NOT to live your life according to the smokers' demands."

It's not the "smokers' demands" it is the choice and right of the business owner. Tobacco is a legal product, and if the owner of the business wants to allow people to consume it in the business HE/SHE paid for, then by all means. If you do not like this, then don't go in! If you really want to go in the business, but really don't like SHS, you can do one of two things.

A) Grow a set, quit crying like a little bitch, and realize that the world doesn't revolve around you or your health.

B) Don't go in there to begin with.

March 27, 2009 at 3:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

madpoet (anonymous) says...

crack, I am pointing out that it's all about personal choice. You can personally choose to expose yourself to smoke just as you can personally choose to eat food that can be harmful to your health. And I'm not so sure they won't stop at banning smoking, either. Walters said banning smoke was "the next step." That indicates that something else is being worked up. I don't want to live in a communist town that makes all my choices for me. Thanks for the quotes, josie, a lot of people forget that Hitler convinced people to do great evil thru propaganda. The trick is to convince a group of people that they are the elite and dehumanize the group you don't approve of. Sound familiar? You wouldn't think of telling your neighbor they are nasty, smelly people but when it's a faceless someone, that is different. Smokers are people, too. I don't care for their habit but think that is their choice if they keep it out of my face and limit it to permitted areas.

March 27, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Matt, calm down, crack will be gone for the weekend in a few minutes and these posts get decidedly better.

March 27, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

madpoet (anonymous) says...

ha ha rbow! I needed that. Thanks.

March 27, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

"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."
seriouslyfolks on another forum.

Did someone here say, "Sith master?"

March 27, 2009 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"Did someone here say, "Sith master?"

I don't know how many times I've told him no one gets the Warcraft jokes but him, but he never learns...

March 27, 2009 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

olddog (anonymous) says...

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/

During the American Revolution, George Washington sought money and supplies for his troops. He reportedly once wrote to the Continental Congress, "If you can't send money, send tobacco".

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

olddog (anonymous) says...

The American Cancer Society air quality testing of secondhand smoke proves ETS is 532 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations. And newly discovered is this British Medical Journal published AQ test result which shows that secondhand smoke is not the hazard that special interest groups claim.

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

The pro-smoking ban activists will claim ".....OSHA doesn't have a standard (permissible exposure limit) for secondhand smoke."

The proper response is that ".....OSHA is much more scientific than our detractors claim, OSHA has a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for all the components of secondhand smoke"

Example: OSHA doesn't have a PEL for welding smoke.......but OSHA regulates welding smoke levels in the workplace by measuring the individual airborne chemical components of welding smoke and then compares the results to individual established PEL's.

See OSHA
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadi...

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

March 28, 2009 at 6:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

olddog (anonymous) says...

corrected link for post at 6:01pm this one should work

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

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

LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...

Give the snoking ban a rest already, the articles in the Gazette are not worth reading anymore because NOTHING is in it but Smoking Ban BS. I hope when the vote is over that WE (the rest of emporia) wont have to listen to all the "I told ya so's" for the next 6 months! Leave it alone already!

March 28, 2009 at 8:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I bet ya we will have to listen to the "I told ya so's" and when we do I'm goin' to tell ya "I told ya so.";)

March 28, 2009 at 9:24 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 actually happened in 2003.

March 29, 2009 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Matt, I know you signed your letter to the gazette along with your co-writer. Would you like to enlighten crack & silver who "helped" you write it. It seems to have gone over their heads.
Steve

March 29, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Ohh, by all means. I did have a little help with this piece from John Hancock.

I'm posting this link because it is apparent to me that some of us have forgotten it, so here you go:

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/...

March 29, 2009 at 3:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Why Thank You Matthew.

I think your link to the above post should be printed on every ballot. I guess we'll just have to hope Emporian's are smart enough to see through the smoke screen.

March 29, 2009 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pragmatic1 (anonymous) says...

Wow, what a beautiful post! It looks like smoking's gonna be banned EVERYWHERE pretty soon! Luckily, smoking bans (and ridiculously high tobacco taxes) don't affect me (even though I smoke a pack a day) ever since I switched to electronic cigarettes! If this happens, you should too. Hell, even if it doesn't, you still should. E-cigarettes are much safer than regular cigarettes, and you can smoke them anywhere cigarettes are banned (bars, restaurants, even airplanes)!

I found this blog that helped me figure out which brand of e-cigarette I should buy. If you're considering switching over, I hope this page helps you like it helped me:

Green Smokes

And here are some videos with information about how e-cigs work:

You Tube - HealthySmokes Channel

March 29, 2009 at 7:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )