Happiness09 (anonymous) says...

I say we ban smokers. (for meat of course)

March 30, 2009 at 1:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

EsqEB (anonymous) says...

It has been shown by authorities, but I shall not name who or what their credentials are, that people named Larry are three times more likely to compare apples to oranges and not realize they are doing it.

They are also more than twice as likely to have a brother named Darrell.

March 30, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Dido1969 (anonymous) says...

Oh, you must be kidding...I've been in a LOT of steak houses and I've never been in one where there wasn't smoke to one degree or another. Please, eventually you're just going to have to get Real...

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

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Good grief, Crack. Give it up. This issue is not about health, and you know it. It is all about control and an attempt by a small group of special interest meddlers to dictate what they perceive to be proper and acceptable social behavior for all. This group doesn't like the way some folks lead their lives and are hell-bent on passing legislation to ensure everyone in Emporia complies to rules & behavior the group finds acceptable.

I am so tired of you, CAE, Nanny Walters, and the ad-nauseum bombardment of slanted propaganda anti-smoking radio ads on CAE puppet Sauder's radio staions, that I hope this bogus ban gets thrown out just to spite all of you.

Anyone who votes against this needless ban is voting for preservation of the very foundation of what our nation stands for: freedom, choice, individual rights, and protection from being bullied by those who wish to eliminate those freedoms.

Vote for what best serves the masses; not what caters to a few pompous a$$es.

Vote "NO" on April 7.

March 30, 2009 at 2:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

deluvly1 (anonymous) says...

So you don't think that the grilled meat is served to the whole family...what about the neighbors having to breath smoke from the grill? Yes, a lot of smoke/grilling is done inside, most good BBQ joints have smoke inside...you're grasping at straws. Downtown Emporia is often blessed with the wonderful aroma of meat smoking from several different venues...that aroma is carried via smoke. You just come off as so desperate to make a point even when you have none...

March 30, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

olddog (anonymous) says...

Sunset Equities took over the Wendy’s in Emporia in 2001, but due to its run down condition, the restaurant had to be closed for repairs and renovation.

Despite complication, Reiman hopes to have a newly refurbished Wendy’s to open up for spring 2009. He is currently working on opening up two more restaurants in different locations in Kansas.

If the building was in run down condition, I could only imagine what condition the kitchen and "Grill" was in!

http://www.esubulletin.com/articles/n...

March 30, 2009 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

bj--

To you this issue may be about rights. To me this issue is about health, EVERYONE'S health. The subject is whether or not to ban a something that serves no purpose and harms others. The only one's who can make an arguement that their rights are being taken away are buisness owners. However, businesses are regulated in many ways already for the safety of their patrons, this is just an additional one. The safety of the public outweighs the "right" of the business owner in this case, just like in food prepartion codes, capacity codes etc.

March 30, 2009 at 2:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

crack and slvr,

You are correct, businesses are regulated in many ways. Every year the health dept. comes in and inspects to make sure that the business has hot and cold water, to a certain temperature, and that coolers are operating at a certain temperature, etc. Why don't they come in and see how "polluted" the air is? Ohh, that's right, because there is no set standard for that, is there? Why don't they come to Town Royal and say, ohh, you are over the acceptable PEL level for SHS set by OSHA, and you are closed down until you are under that level? Any particular reason why they don't do this?

March 30, 2009 at 3:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

EsqEB:
I really enjoyed your whole post--laughed at the first part and rolled at the TV sitcom throwback. Thank you.

crack:
Why don't you understand that when people make these comparisons, it is for the purpose of bring a bit of reality to light. If people think that SHS is the only unhealthy element in their environment, thereby thinking it to be evil, it is helpful to educate them about the multitude of equally or more harmful things they unknowingly consume. This can bring them a perspective that SHS is not some great evil and that there are other elements to life that should be dealt with with equal or greater caution. That is why Larry and so many others of us make these comparisons. It would be nice if just once, you could acknowledge the point being made and argue it where it stands instead of dragging it to a different classification then throwing it out. Not everything has to be a direct comparison to be a valid argument--I get the feeling you didn't do much debating in school. All points of the debate do not have to answer only one aspect. Multiple aspects exist with every subject and each has to be addressed on its own merit. This aspect is the one of perspective on how harmful SHS is in comparison with other commonly consumed or encountered elements--it's for the individual to weigh and see if it changes their opinion about SHS being evil as opposed to being yet another item on the list of potentially risky things to allow or avoid in one's own personal life and then to consider whether it is worthy beyond those other elements to adopt additional laws over.

March 30, 2009 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

By the way, cigarettes DO serve a purpose. They are the only things keeping this conversation somewhat civil, at least on my end.

March 30, 2009 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

No, Silverback. This issue is ALL about rights. How can it, by any stretch of the imagination or definition, be about health? Me thinketh thou has been brainwashed from drinking too much CAE Kool-aid.

Virtually every public, retail, office, and government building in town is already smoke-free. 90% of all restaurants are smoke-free. Only bars and private organizations (i.e., VFW & American Legion) allow smoking. So exactly where are all these innocent victims being forcibly exposed to such thick clouds of toxic smoke that they need to be protected by you, CAE, Theresa, a discrimatory law, and the newly formed Fire Department Nicotine Police?

You, Crack, Sister Theresa, and the CAE cult members have a plethora of choices of smoke-free alternatives. Fact is, you don't even need to make choices. So few places in town allow smoking that venturing into one would be a statistical oddity, unless you went to a bar. Even then you have alternatives: that is, you have choices. Choices are rights; and everyone, not just you, deserves to have choices.

No one in Emporia is forced to endure first-hand, second-hand, or under-hand smoke. We already have an effective smoking ban policy in effect in Emporia, and it works. Therefore, this can not, is not, and will never be a health issue. It is, to any sensible and unbiased person, a control issue. It is a rights issue. It is a freedom issue.

We have a choice to make next week. Vote for freedom and control of your own life, or relinquish that freedom and control to CAE and a few self-ordained socially superior reformers.

As of now, you still have that choice. Don't give it up.

Vote "NO" on April 7. I already did.

March 30, 2009 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

BJ, absolutely 100% correct.

Remember everyone, if this is a health issue, why were they trying to pull liquor licenses after 3 violations? The only businesses that would affect are bars. My the memories have grown short!

This ban is another attack on bars, by the same group who has been trying to push some kind of anti-drinking establishment legislation for the past four years. Remember them trying to limit the number of liquor licenses downtown? Or trying to move the distance a bar could be from a church, school, historical place, etc, from 200 ft. to 600 ft?

Every year they come up with something that will limit/eliminate some of the bars in Emporia. This year, they just got to use health concerns as a smoke screen (pun intended).

I don't remember who said it on here, but it was absolutely brilliant, so I'm going to say it again.

Because of this group, we will be trading lung cancer for colon cancer due to all the smoke they are now blowing up our @sses.

Vote No! I already did (too!).

March 30, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

Bj--

You sad sad soul. Who's individual rights are being affected by this? The smoker's?? How? They are not being told they can't smoke. They can still make the choice to smoke all they want....outside. Why you may ask are smokers being targeted? Because they are directly changing the enviornment every time they light up indoors. It makes no difference where they are at, whether that be a bar or a restaurant or the bowling alley or whatever. When they choose to smoke they are choosing for everyone to smoke!! It is not right to KNOWINGLY harm your fellow man whether or not you think they should be there. I may have comparable places to go, but I am allowing smokers to dictate where I go on the basis of health. It is not right for them to choose to change the enviornment and they say you have to breathe our carcinogenic smoke if you want to come in.

March 30, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Slvrnblck: you said:

"The only one's who can make an arguement that their rights are being taken away are buisness owners."

WHAT! How arrogant and self-involved you are! What about MY rights to choose? What about the rights of ALL Emporians to choose? What about the rights of the young lady who would be forced to step into a dark alley at 1:00 AM? What about the rights of the disabled man who is forced outside in cold, rain, heat, or snow? What about the rights of the elderly woman who is forced into the elements so as not to offend your senses? What about the rights of visitors to our city who choose to smoke in their motel room? What about the rights of part-time home-based business owners trying to put food on the table who are told they can no longer smoke in their own homes? What about the rights of brave veterans who fought and sacrificed for our freedom just to have you take away that freedom within the confines of their private, dues collecting, club house?

Knock it off, Slvr. You ain't that stupid. Health isn't the issue. Health is the excuse. This entire trumped-up bogus attempt to dictate morality and satisfy inflated egos by a self-perceived band of socially superior bullies is all about control and power.

I for one still cling to the belief that our nation is run by the people, for the people, and the people need to vote this radical, punitive, needless smoking ban down and send the proponents back to their gilded cages to lead their pathetic, meddlling, boring lives and leave our freedoms and rights alone.

Don't let the CAE smoke screen cloud your judgment.

Vote "NO" on April 7.

March 30, 2009 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck posted, "The subject is whether or not to ban a something that serves no purpose"

Correction: serves no purpose to YOU. It serves a purpose to those who engage in smoking.

Slvrnblck also said, "and harms others."

This statement is a lie. There is no evidence that the air quality in any establishment in Emporia is harming anyone.

slvrnblck continues, "However, businesses are regulated in many ways already for the safety of their patrons, this is just an additional one."

No, the regulations in place that you've identified (food preparation codes, capacity codes, etc.) have been put in place because there is a clearly established cause and effect relationship. No such clear cause and effect relationship exists for the claim that exposure to 2nd hand smoke is a public health hazard.

Furthermore, exposure to 2nd hand smoke is easily avoidable for anyone with....common sense.

All rights are precious, even if a few individuals choose not to exercies them, that does not make them less valuable. Nor does it minimize the sacrifices of those who fought and died to ensure those rights.

March 30, 2009 at 4:33 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 30, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

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.

March 30, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I have a simple question about the original editorial posted here - (I've stayed out of this discussion so far, and this is not an entry) - Is consuming the carcinogens in flame-broiled meat the same as inhaling it into your lungs? I mean, the problem with smoking, or inhaling smoke, is that you draw the tar and carcinogens into your LUNGS, or that is mostly the point. I fail to see where the meat analogy works quite the same here. Unless people, instead of smoking, light their cigarettes and then swallow them. (Of course, I DO enjoy the smell of steak sizzling on the grill, but I don't really concentrate on inhaling as much of it as I can.....). I mean, its harder to get rid of it in your lungs..... goes both ways.... I enjoy food in my stomach, but not so much when I accidentally suck it down my windpipe...

March 30, 2009 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

ever heard of colon cancer, caused by red meat?

March 30, 2009 at 4:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

BJ--

You didn't even respond to my post, unless you were still responding to my earlier one. Read the one at 4:19. It answers the one you posted directly after that also.

March 30, 2009 at 5:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

MisterO--

SHS serves no purpose to anyone. I have never seen nor heard of anyone wanting to be around SHS.

SHS is harmful. Many sites and links have been posted numerous times. Also, as crack said just look at the physical changes one encounters when around smoke.

And I seriously doubt anyone of our brave men and women who have served our country were preserving the right for others to harm their fellow individuals.

March 30, 2009 at 5:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Good point, rbow. I recently underwent my annual physical check-up. I was 100% healthy and strong, even though I have been smoking the killer devil weed for over 40 years.

My physician had only one caveat for me. No, it was not to stop smoking. It was to drastically cut down on my consumption of red meat. That stuff kills. I don't care. I love it and will enjoy it until I keel over dead at the age of 90 or so.

My father smoked all his life. He died at the age of 89 from liver disease caused by drinking too much. My grandmother was exposed to massive doses of second-hand smoke her entire life. She died at the age of 102.

As Rosanne Rosanadana used to say on Saturday Night Live,"It's always somethin'".

March 30, 2009 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

A new study has just been done in Emporia Kansas that shows SHS causes brain cell death. A study of 1 person known as crackinsack was done for a period of 3 months.
After being exposed to levels of SHS well below OSHA limits the subject lost 99% of all common sense.
This study will be published in some obscure medical Journal somewhere, and then touted as fact by the anti-smoking groups funded by J&J.

March 30, 2009 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wyse_guy (anonymous) says...

(Of course, I DO enjoy the smell of steak sizzling on the grill, but I don't really concentrate on inhaling as much of it as I can.....).

Someone has to stand over that grill and watch the meat cook. Obviously they are inhaling the smoke from the grill whether they want to or not whether it be at a resturant or at home. Why arent our local cooks falling over dead from second hand grill smoke? I doubt they are allowed to go stand outside while they are grilling your food. There job is to stand there at the grill while it cooks.

March 30, 2009 at 5:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

open_eyes posted, "I mean, the problem with smoking, or inhaling smoke, is that you draw the tar and carcinogens into your LUNGS, or that is mostly the point. "

Just to clarify one point: the ban isn't being proposed because *smoking* is bad for you. They are proposing the ban because they say exposure to 2nd hand smoke is bad for you.

March 30, 2009 at 5:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"Is consuming the carcinogens in flame-broiled meat the same as inhaling it into your lungs?"

NO

I think the point was that the cooking process produces potential carcinogens, not that eating the meat some how cause them to get into your lungs. Perhaps not the best analogy. I did have a good idea though, how about if those that are afraid of shs not go around shs or apply for a job if they know shs will be there. I was thinking about this recently, I don't know if I've mentioned it before, it seems to me I have. The way things stand right now with the current restrictions on tobacco and the shrinking demand for smoking allowed establishments it is very easy to avoid shs. It hasn't always been this way but it is now. If you are afraid of shs don't go around it. Simple. If you do still go around it, you have been warned and it is now on you. Surely this bit of common sense should end this debate. Glad I could help. No furhter government intervention needed.

Vote NO please. Thank you.

March 30, 2009 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

crackinsack posted, "Clearly SHS in establishments in Emporia are harming the general public; I'm walking, talking evidence of it."

That's a lie and you admitted that in another thread. Remember that remark about how you would be arrested? You never did answer my question: Why would you be arrested if you were 'defending yourself from harm'?

Answer: Because you aren't being harmed. If you are being harmed, get a doctor's statement to show evidence that you are being harmed, and file charges.

crackinsack continues, "but that doesn't make SHS suddenly healthy."

Another lie. Who says 2nd hand smoke is healthy?

You are once again making things up in order to over-dramatize your point of view.

March 30, 2009 at 5:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck posted, "SHS is harmful. Many sites and links have been posted numerous times."

And many sites and links have been posted numerous times calling into question the methods of those studies, and the interpretations of those studies. See the links in the Vote thread here: http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/20...

slvrnblck also posted, "And I seriously doubt anyone of our brave men and women who have served our country were preserving the right for others to harm their fellow individuals."

Sorry, but soldiers don't get to cherry-pick which rights they want to fight for and which ones they don't consider important. Neither do you.

March 30, 2009 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I realize what the point of the ban is, MrO, but thanks anyway for clarifying in case my point was mistaken. Actually, I really wasn't even trying to make any point, other than the analogy wasn't one that I felt really applies here. I have vegetarian friends that come over when I grill, they bring their own dish or we have enough salad & non-meat things to keep them happy, I haven't seen any studies yet that proved me eating MY steak gave THEM colon cancer. And, I generally stand by the grill where the breeze is NOT blowing the smoke directly to me, and people sitting around seem to move accordingly with the wind, if they can.

I remember reading a tongue-in-cheek study awhile ago, that determined that the #1 cause of death the world over was...... living. Everything that lives, dies. Something that was never alive never dies.

Except some of my poor jokes & puns - LOL

March 30, 2009 at 5:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

open_eyes posted, "I remember reading a tongue-in-cheek study awhile ago, that determined that the #1 cause of death the world over was...... living. Everything that lives, dies. Something that was never alive never dies. Except some of my poor jokes & puns - LOL"

Ooooh....Nevermind. (Emily Litilla, 1975)

March 30, 2009 at 6:07 p.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 30, 2009 at 7:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Was she (Gilda) the originator of that joke? LOL - I'm sure it's been copied many times over, I honestly can't remember where I heard it, but it wasn't 34 years ago.... LOL... Thanks, MrO.

My jokes are the only exception. They were never alive, and yet they still fall flat on their face & die..... how is that possible....... :)

March 30, 2009 at 8:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

Open_Eyes, I'm pretty sure Gilda was the originator, God rest her soul. Emily was one of my favorites.

March 30, 2009 at 8:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

open-eyes,
I think you get it. The effects of SHS, and the effects of grilling a steak or burger on a grill are the same.

It's the dose of chemicals we are exposed to that make the difference.

Did you know that if you carried around a pocket full of nickles you could be exposed to toxic levels of nickle?

Did you know that if you saved all your credit card slips in your wallet/purse you could be exposed to toxic levels of benzine and arsinec ?

Did you know that if you take a 10 minute shower you are exposed to more chlorine gas Than a death row inmate?
We all die, it's a matter of fact.
What's the next thing CHE is going to protect us from?
Steve

March 30, 2009 at 9 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justamarine (anonymous) says...

Steve,
The next thing after they CLEAN OUT Emporia they will probably tell whoever is left over that guns kill people so get rid of the guns.

March 30, 2009 at 9:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

no, justamarine, I will guarantee you the next thing will be outside smoking, (as per their playbook).

Oh help us please mr. commissioner, we have to walk through all that SHS that those nasty smokers are leaving within that ten feet of a business entrance to get into the place. Mark the Date, Mark my words this will be next, followed by smoking in your car with a child present.
It's already happened elsewhere, it's in their playbook.
Steve

March 30, 2009 at 9:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pingeon (anonymous) says...

Don't forget your homes. Starting with apartment complexes....

March 30, 2009 at 9:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

I am still waiting for the Emporia chamber of commerce to come out for this ban, as well as the motel owners here in Emporia.

The Chamber of Commerce is supposed to promote Emporia, why not state your posistion on this ban?

And the Gazette should be asking the Chamber their official stance on this ban. You Want to stir up stuff Pat Kelly, report on this!
It's a challenge Pat, or Gwen, Or Chris.
Anyone at the Gazette want to pose as a reporter?
Steve Corbin

March 30, 2009 at 9:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justamarine (anonymous) says...

Steve,
I was refering to when they have totally cleaned out Emporia from,smokers, drinkers, people that eat unhealthy, etc.etc. then the guns. Did you know it is against the law in Florida to fart. A kid got kicked off the school bus for three days because he supposdley passed gas on the bus. They called it a distubance, another kid got arrested for passing gas in class.

March 30, 2009 at 9:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justamarine (anonymous) says...

It must of had something to do with the ozone layer...lol

March 30, 2009 at 9:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tbluma (anonymous) says...

crack states that it is a lie that air quality in any establishment isn't bad because his or her lungs burn, coughing ensues and the throat hurts. I've never seen a dog, cat or a wild animal that doesn't know enough to go elsewhere under such conditions. I therefore ask if crack wouldn't be better off drinking at home and letting the rest of us live or lives in peace and quiet.
I've said in this venue before and I'll say it again, You can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Vote no

March 30, 2009 at 9:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

slvrnblck (anonymous) says...

MisterO--

I guess I was unaware there was a "right" to harm others!!

Silly me!

March 30, 2009 at 9:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I don't know if there is a "right to hurt others" but I do know that it is currently very easy to avoid shs. The demand for more smoke free establishments along with restrictions on tobacco sales and use have seen to this. With it being so very easy to avoid shs and still live a very fulfilled life it seems that the only ones getting harmed by shs are those that choose to go around it. There for, if you are harmed by shs you can't say that someone else is hurting you because you chose to go around the shs. It hasn't always been so easy for the nonsmoker to avoid shs but it sure is super easy now.

I really don't want to believe that the majority of adults in this town can't figure this out, so please vote NO. Thank you.

March 30, 2009 at 10:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

justamarine (anonymous) says...

slvrnblck,
Do you and crack ride the same bus?If you do don't forget your helmet either little buddy.

Let the business owners decide how to run their business, if you don't like it don't go, this has nothing to do with a health issue, it is a rights issue from the word go...There are plenty of places for you to visit that do not allow smoking,go support them. My understanding is if you are 18 yrs old you are considered an adult, and you can't drink in a bar or club until you are 21 yrs of age. Old enough to make informed decisions on how they wish to live and where they want to go.

March 30, 2009 at 10:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

You know what has amazed me? Ms. Walters was past co-owner of TWO hamburger places in Emporia. In reading various articles, I believe obsity, not only in adults but children is one of our nations major problems. Now, I imagine to her, at that time, it was good because that is where she was having her living supported. Now, she has found other avenues to support herself such as our TAX DOLLARS and all those "grants" that they are given (listen to the radio).

March 30, 2009 at 10:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Slvrnblk: You said this:

"I guess I was unaware there was a "right" to harm others!!"

It appears there is much of which you are unaware. When I played baseball I had my nose broken, two teeth knocked out, a shoulder separated, and various other injuries. When I played football I broke an ankle, my nose (again), some toes and some fingers. The people who injured me did so unintentionally but had a "right" to do so. It comes with the territory. I knew that going in. Had I wanted to avoid being harmed, I could have stayed out of the fray and avoided exposing myself to the risk. I made the CHOICE to subject myself to the possibility of being injured.

I suspect that if you and your meddling mob of morality marshalls had children in the schools I attended, you would have campaigned to ban football, baseball, wrestling, and all other activities because sports can cause injuries and you feel it is your destiny to decide what is right for everybody.

We all have choices, Slvr; at least as long as you, crack, and CAE aren't allowed to decide how all citizens and business owners of Emporia conduct their personal lives.

Stop twisting the truth, using fear tactics, and trying to convince us that cow patties and beef patties are the same thing. We know BS when we see it.

This issue has nothing to do with health and everything to do with rights and freedom to make choices.

Vote "NO". I did.

March 30, 2009 at 11:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

rbow: I read in the paper tonight that a new batch of NO signs have arrived. I would be proud to display one of them in my front yard. How can I get one of those yellow beauties?

March 30, 2009 at 11:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Concerning my above post. I will point out to some "why" I
posted. First, it was Ms. Walters and her spouses "choice" to
own such a business even though there were many reports
concerning "Fast Food" restaurants and obsity. It was their
clienteles "choice" to eat there and to "size-up" just as it is a non-smoker and a smoker currently and Emporias business owners to be "smoke free" or not. This truly is about choice and our freedoms. It is so sad when a group of people, because they don't "enjoy" something then try to take it away from others who do and lie about their reasons for such. As I don't like "Fast Food" there are others who do, does that give me the right to "ban" even tho I see people going in that shouldn't for their "health"? Also, there have been various reports concerning people who work in "fast food", all the grease etc.
This ban reminds me of an old saying,
"Want their cake and eat it too" because
even though there are MANY non smoking places they want them ALL!!
Heck with the smoker!!!

Vote "No!" (if you haven't and hope you
did if you have)

March 31, 2009 at 12:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )