Last year, the community went through a difficult battle to make Emporia businesses smoke free.
Now, legislators in Topeka are talking about passing a statewide smoking ordinance. Although legislators debated the issue last year, no action was taken. But this year, Gov. Mark Parkinson seems intent on getting a bill signed.
In the last 10 years, 36 Kansas communities have passed smoke-free ordinances. Depending on the legislation that is passed, a statewide law could nullify the work communities have done. The state law could overturn local laws thus allowing smoking back in public places.
If the legislation being debated by the House passes, it will be a step back for Emporia because the proposal would allow smoking in bars, clubs, casinos and food-service establishments with ventilated rooms.
So now we find our community in an interesting predicament.
We would have never thought that clean air supporters would be lobbying against clean air legislation, and bars and restaurants who were vehemently opposed to a smoking ban are now supportive of a statewide smoking ordinance proposal.
No one knows what this legislation will look like after the lobbyists and special interests groups get done working over the bill or whether a bill will even get signed by the governor.
When our community debated this issue more than a year ago, people were not shy about voicing their opinions and they should not be now. We are sure our local legislators would like to hear your opinion. Don’t hestitate to call or e-mail them. Their contact information is below.
Chris Walker
Editor & Publisher
Chevy_Guy (anonymous) says...
>If the legislation being debated by the House passes, it will be a step back for Emporia because the proposal would allow smoking in bars, clubs, casinos and food-service establishments with ventilated rooms.
Restoring someones right to operate their business as they see fit is a step backwards? This article is definitely opinion-editorial the way it is worded. And where is this Casino that would allow smoking again if this passes?
February 10, 2010 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
The day an individuals smoking habit has no effect on those around them is the day I will agree with this being a right to operate one's business issue. This is a health issue, never was about rights. But what irony that the pro smoke crowd will likely support this legislation in its current incarnation.
February 10, 2010 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
HB 2642 would probably overturn Emporia's ordinance if passed. However if you read the bill , businesses could only allow smoking if under 18 years of age were "banned" from the business and , AND IT'S A BIG AND, payment of a $1.00 per square foot annual fee to the city from the business that chooses to allow smoking. Don't know very many places that could afford that. You certainly wouldn't have to worry about the bowling alley going back to smoking. What is their square footage 40,000 sq, ft? it would be a nice drop in the bucket for the cities annual budget though.
February 10, 2010 at 3:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PocketKings (anonymous) says...
Responsibility for your actions. (You exposed yourself to that environment in the first place)
February 10, 2010 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
The other bill that parkinson wants is a strong bill banning smoking in every business building in Kansas, EXCEPT STATE OWNED CASINOS!
February 10, 2010 at 3:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
BUT THIS IS OLD NEWS.
Let's get back to bashing each other.
February 10, 2010 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I find it amazing, when the State, City, County, encounter budget woes, how they seem to come up with ways to limit the rights of citizens, as well as ways to " monetarily rape " the citizens, except when it comes to their own pockets and then there is a double standard applied.
I also find it to be " ironic ', how the Gazette who portrays themselves as a champion or voice of the " The People ", seem to flip, flop in their support of only some of the people and are very opinionated, when a news publication is not supposed to be opinionated or biased at all . Hmmmmm.
February 10, 2010 at 3:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Interesting, thank you for the information Steve, seems you are well versed on this.
Pocketkings,
So in effect you believe it logical that my whole choice to patronize an establishment be based solely off your choice to invade my lungs with your cancer? Drink and chew till your heart is content, won't hear a compliant out of me, but the delivery method of this product alone takes the choice out of my hands the minute you light up, no other habit can make this claim. What you fail to realize is that even if I choose not to go into an establishment because of smoke, my choice has already been made by the smokers who say "go elsewhere". Very equitable indeed.
February 10, 2010 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bloomsbury (SC DIXON) says...
Oh no, not again…bottom line is the bottom line. The ban HAS hurt the bar business, perhaps the restaurant business as well. In bars that sell lottery tickets I am told that it has cost the STATE lots of revenue (remember all those wonderful things lottery money is/was going to buy?)
Of course we can and will raise tobacco taxes again…but then if you force people to quit smoking because of the expense, who then generates the money from ciggie sales? Too fast to kill the golden goose. It just feels so warm and fuzzy to save folks from themselves that sometimes lawmakers are a little shortsighted.
If you tax a product out of existence then you will collect no more $ from that product.
Look before you leap.
A friend of mine was making a nice living as a bartender…now she’s pounding the pavement looking for work because the bar where she worked has closed. Since the town she lives in passed their smoking ban one year ago she said that it was easy to track a steady, monthly decline in sales…and tips. Now she’s having a devil of the time getting unemployment benefits---her own money---from the state.
She's pretty frightened, no job leads, having to fight for each unemployment check, the possibilty of going on food stamps for the first time in her life.
But I'll bet she feels better not having to breathe in that awful smoke.
February 10, 2010 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
If the State can pass laws that nullify local laws, why hasn't the State passed a Sunday Sales bill to allow the sale of alcohol on Sundays statewide? These local "blue" laws are in violation of the U.S. Constitution for Pete's sake! Who does the city of Emporia think they are to tell me I can't earn a decent wage on Sunday? Please help me, oh powerful State legislators, and nullify senseless local bans on Sunday sales! Oh, if our liquor stores could stay open later than nine that would be a nice bonus too. Thanks!
'enry
February 10, 2010 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yev_kassem (anonymous) says...
Can't the city's ordinance be stricter than the State's ordinance?
For example, can't the state post speed limits at 65 mph but the city come in and say they want the limit to be 55 mph. The city couldn't go over the limit and set it at 70 but as long as they make the law more strict I thought they could.
Just a question though?
February 10, 2010 at 5:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
People who complain create stress. Stress causes cancer. Ban people who complain from appearing in public!
February 10, 2010 at 5:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
inaweoftheblindness (anonymous) says...
Here we go again. I and about 35 of my friends, have not frequented any bar in Emporia since the smoking ban came into effect.Just so much simpler to buy the alcohol and have a party at home than to sit in a bar and be forced to light up outside. Would have been alot better if there was no ban and the city had forced the businesses to put in ventilated areas for the smokers. I'm sure, as I have heard from a few bar owners, that sales are down and some have laid off employees because of it, but I am 1 of the many whom have chosen to stay home and drink and smoke. A restraunt is a lot different than a bar. I go to a restraunt, eat and leave within an hour, so smoking ban is no big deal there, but a bar I went to for 4-6 hours, big difference. Don't really care anymore, I have a nice big bar at home in the basement with 2 pool tables, 2 dart games and big screen with surround sound...SMOKE all you want, (Its ventilated) byob and we all have alot fun on fri and sat nights after a long weeks work. OH by the way, alot of non smokers show up too and love the fact that we all can be together in a well ventilated place.
February 10, 2010 at 5:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
yev,
It's called a preemptive bill and as such preempts local ordinances, cities cannot make their ordinances more restrictive.
bloom, My in store lottery sales went down eighty-five thousand in 2009 compared to 2008. Smoking ban? Economy?
hank, you may get your Sunday sales soon. There are groups pushing for it, but the liquor store owners have a pretty good lobbying group in Topeka fighting against it.
February 10, 2010 at 6:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
I think it's funny that the same legislature who relies on tobacco taxes want to restrict smoking. Bloom has it right on in that respect. I always thought it was stupid to ban smoking in bars. I think it's ok for restaurants since people aren't camped in there for long periods and minors go to restaurants. I'm glad another poster said the same thing as I'm not a smoker and he apparently is. It's totally ridiculous that businesses can't have smoking rooms anymore, too. I'm exposed to more smoke now since everyone is in the parking lots puffing away instead of secluded in a smoking breakroom inside.
February 11, 2010 at 8:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
One of the reasons the liquor store owners are not wanting Sunday sales is their realization that it will increase their total sales little if any...while causing a significant rise in their operating cost. All this because a few people can't get it together enough on Saturday to buy for Sunday at the same time.
February 11, 2010 at 8:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chevy_Guy (anonymous) says...
I think the liquor stores are underestimating how much they could sell on Sundays. I drive a buddy to Olpe on Sundays every now and then and their store is always very busy, If liquor stores want to be closed one day of the week, they should probably pick Monday or Tuesday.
February 11, 2010 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy,
Just because they COULD be open on Sunday doesn't mean they HAVE to be. You say it'll increase operating costs, but that's not necessarily true. I would wager more people would buy booze on Sunday than Monday. Why not follow the barbershop playbook and close on Monday instead of Sunday. This way, operating costs stay the same, but they'll have an opportunity for greater profit.
I don't understand why liquor stores are supposedly against this. It won't force them to be open on Sunday. Competition may force them to, but that only proves my point about more people buying on Sunday.
Whether it is more profitable to be open on Sunday is beside the point anyway. The point is that it should be the business owners' option to sell a legal product on any given day of the week. I think you should be allowed to sell booze 24/7 if you wanted to. It may not be profitable, but it should still be your choice. What's next? Is the city going to tell Burger King they can't sell burgers after 9pm? Who are they to tell me I can't buy/sell a legal product at 3 in the morning?
The fact that so many conservatives are against "big government" yet they support these intrusive "blue laws" just goes to show that they are driven solely by their religious beliefs. Whatever THEY believe is okay, but anything else is forbidden...
'enry
February 11, 2010 at 8:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Very valid point Henry, one that I often laugh about myself, never ceases to amaze how capitalism is the greatest show on earth until it carries over into that other show.
February 11, 2010 at 9 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
well put, Henry
February 11, 2010 at 9:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Excellent comment, 'enry.
I remember when we first moved to Emporia and the real estate agent telling us that he hoped we were ready for the religious belief system that dictacted store hours on Sundays. I was astounded and didn't believe him....at first. After all, I had lived in Tennessee and they don't even do that there.
And then came Wal Mart where we can add to the state and local coffers 24 hours a day!
I also remember when Hawaii adopted the law where stores like drug stores and grocery stores could sell booze. You never saw so much construction of shelves in your life. It was VERY profitable. Shoot, the drug store where I worked hired a guy just to manage the liquor department.
February 11, 2010 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Smoke free or not
By Chris Walker (Contact)
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Last year, the community went through a difficult battle to make Emporia businesses smoke free.
Now, legislators in Topeka are talking about passing a statewide smoking ordinance. Although legislators debated the issue last year, no action was taken. But this year, Gov. Mark Parkinson seems intent on getting a bill signed.
In the last 10 years, 36 Kansas communities have passed smoke-free ordinances. Depending on the legislation that is passed, a statewide law could nullify the work communities have done. The state law could overturn local laws thus allowing smoking back in public places.
If the legislation being debated by the House passes, it will be a step back for Emporia because the proposal would allow smoking in bars, clubs, casinos and food-service establishments with ventilated rooms.
So now we find our community in an interesting predicament.
We would have never thought that clean air supporters would be lobbying against clean air legislation, and bars and restaurants who were vehemently opposed to a smoking ban are now supportive of a statewide smoking ordinance proposal.
No one knows what this legislation will look like after the lobbyists and special interests groups get done working over the bill or whether a bill will even get signed by the governor.
When our community debated this issue more than a year ago, people were not shy about voicing their opinions and they should not be now. We are sure our local legislators would like to hear your opinion. Don’t hesitate to call or e-mail them. Their contact information is below.
Chris Walker
Editor & Publisher
Where is the part about how religious people are trying to stop efforts to allow Sunday liquor sales? I must have missed it.
February 11, 2010 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
create,
So true. The TYPE of store that is allowed sell hard liquor is a whole 'nother topic! I'm always a little shocked when I travel out of state and come across a convenience store or even a gift shop with a full alcohol selection. Then I think about it and I wonder, "Why not?" Why are Kansas laws or city ordinances allowed to place such restrictions on a business? Doesn't seem right to me.
Sorry to stray from the topic of public tobacco use. My stance on that remains that you should be allowed to buy, sell, and use tobacco products whenever you want as long as you aren't harming others with it. Same goes for booze. I just think it’s weak that the State may nullify local smoking bans while allowing the injustice of local "blue laws" to continue.
'enry
February 11, 2010 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yev_kassem (anonymous) says...
Steve-
Thanks for answering my question. I really still don't understand why that would be though. It doesn't make logical sense. In my example of the speeding laws, the State could look at a lot of statistical data and determine that 65 mph is a fair speed for everyone. However, if my city decides that it is not safe for it's patrons for others to drive that fast in certain areas, then they should be able to lower the speed limit.
Same applies here. The State may decide that a smoking ban needs to be in place for all the communities in Kansas but if some of those communties choose to enforce higher restrictions, I think they should be allowed to.
Side note...kind of sad that Gary from Bruffs was proactive and built his smoking patio outside and now there is a chance it will no longer be needed.
February 11, 2010 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
yev_kassem,
I'm not a graduate of law school so I don't know the ins and outs of a state preemptive statute over a local ordinance. It would be akin to the state regulating it's state highways even when they are in the city limits. There are things like right turns on red or left turns on green that are regulated by state law and the cities cannot override them.
(Think 6th & Commercial)
on your side note about Bruffs, it's money well spent as the statewide ban will probably Not pass anyway. I hear it's a really nice patio area. It is too bad that the city gave him such a hard time while he was trying to get it built.
February 11, 2010 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
seriously, come down off your high horse, kid. It's all the same when it comes to blue or puritanical laws -- tobacco, booze, it's all samey same when the pure hearts want to dictate to those who might be using that sinful booze or tobacco.
February 11, 2010 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
yev_kassem.
The bill is house bill 2642 and in it sec.5 states:
To protect the private property rights of all persons who
own property or businesses in this state, the state of Kansas finds and
determines a single statewide standard for smoking in enclosed areas that
are also public places to be a matter of statewide concern. It is declared
that this act preempts all municipal and county laws, charters, ordinances
and rules and regulations relating to smoking in the locations set forth in
this act.
You can read it all on Kansas.gov
February 11, 2010 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
time for a nap.
February 11, 2010 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
serious
You should know by now that if henry gets a chance to get a dig in or slam religion he's going to. Same ole thing just a different day.
Notice the trend here.......... business owners don't want to open the liquor stores on Sunday so let's try to force them into it
Business owners want to have smoking in their bars..........
let's force them not to.
Every one wants to run a business they just don't want to own one.
February 11, 2010 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Good point tbluma.
February 11, 2010 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
Terrible point, tbluma. No one is suggesting forcing liquor stores to be open on Sunday. I'm saying they should have the option to be if they choose. The smoking ban, on the other hand, only "forces" businesses and individuals to NOT harm other customers. Just like DUI laws "force" me to not to drive my car while drunk because I could potentially harm others. Is that a bad thing? If you are against the smoking ban you should (logically speaking) be against DUI laws as well. Right? Well, are you? You think you should be able to light up and harm me with your SHS in public places, correct? Do you think I should be allowed to get lit and harm you with my vehicle too?
As for "slamming" religion:
"I'm open to the concept of religion; I'm just not entirely convinced by it." - from the movie 'Hot Fuzz'
In other words, I'm fine with the idea of religion; I just don't like it when the religious views of others infringe on my rights as a citizen. I'll let you have your Bible and go to church because it's your right to do so. Why can't you just let me have my booze on Sunday?
'enry
February 11, 2010 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"Why can't you just let me have my booze on Sunday?"
Who said you can't have your booze on Sunday? Did I miss something else?
February 11, 2010 at 1:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks,
Sorry, buddy. I guess I should clarify that for some of "you people". ;-) If you can BUY Bibles on Sunday and then go to church, why can't I go to the liquor store and BUY booze on Sunday? What if my own crazy religion states alcohol can only be bought on Sunday? To buy it any other day is considered a sin. Who are you to say your religion is better?
Anyway, you knew what I meant in the first place. I think you're just trying to get me all riled-up. (-_-)
Don't affect others with your religion and I won't affect others with my booze. Deal?
'enry
February 11, 2010 at 1:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I don't care if you can buy or do buy alcohol on Sunday or not. You need to be arguing with the liquor store owners who are fighting Sunday liquor sales. You wouldn't do that though because they aren't the ones you want to fight with.
February 11, 2010 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yev_kassem (anonymous) says...
Steve-
Great research. Thanks. Still don't agree with it though. (sure as hell isn't the first time I have disagree with a law or 2)
February 11, 2010 at 2:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks,
You're right about that! I wouldn't want to "bite the hand that feeds" me! (so to speak)
'enry
February 11, 2010 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Henry
You're right nobody would force them to be open, but to say that this is driven soley by religious beliefs is absolutely wrong. I don't care if they're open or not, doesn't make me a bit of difference one way or the other. But.... you are also right that competion might force the issue. If I remember correctly the last time this came up the owners were overwhelming against. It will pass or not pass one way or the other.
I would simply suggest you quit wining (pun intended) and buy your booze on Sat. or go down to Steve's on Sun. if it don't pass.
February 11, 2010 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
tbluma,
My point is that it shouldn't even be up to a vote. Yes, I CAN buy my booze on other days, but why should I be FORCED to?
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The ONLY reasoning I've heard behind the ban on Sunday sales is religiously motivated. Simply put, God doesn't think you should get all crunk-a-fied on Sundays. What other reason is there to be opposed to selling a legal product on any given day of the week? I sure haven't heard any other logical excuses for depriving citizens their freedom! Why are the liquor store owners supposedly against it? Because they want a day off? Since when do we allow the mere preferences of one person to rob the constitutional rights of another? Owners wouldn't HAVE to be open on Sunday, so they have no reason to be against it. You can't honestly believe ALL store owners (or potential owners) want to be closed on Sunday. Show me some sound logic for banning Sunday sales and then we can bring it up for a vote. Otherwise, the State just needs to do away with such freedom-robbing laws created solely to appease the religious folks.
Besides, Steve's place is all the way across town. I'd have to get dressed to go downtown, not to mention the fact that I can't even smoke in there! ;-)
The smoking ban protects people from harm done at the hands of others. Can you say the same for the Sunday sales ban? Sorry, I'll quit whining now. I just love my country too much to stay silent...
'enry
February 11, 2010 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
It has been my opinion for sometime now that the liquor store owners generally feel opening on Sunday would increase their total sales little if any while raising their operating cost a great deal. And all for what...a small handful of people that can't get it together enough to buy enough on Saturday to get them through Sunday.
Now that has nothing to do with religion.
February 11, 2010 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
"enry
In your zeal to turn this into a religious argument you just made and then ignored the best argument you have for a state law allowing Sunday sales.
You wrote......." Why are the liquor store owners supposedly against it? Because they want a day off? Since when do we allow the mere preferences of one person to rob the constitutional rights of another? Owners wouldn't HAVE to be open on Sunday........."
Right there is your best argument....unfair restriction of trade.
You are exactly right in noting that most store owners want to be able to take Sunday off. They justify it with the belief that Sunday sales would only take the business they now do in six days and spread it over seven while driving up their cost. And that is a legitimate argument only as long as all the stores in a community are forbidden to open by local statute.
You are also right in assuming that some store owners would like to have that Sunday business that is forbidden to them now to get a little leg up on the competition. But current local option laws can keep that from happening which is the real reason most of the store owners like things as they are now. But a state law would then allow that to happen.
So rather than bitching about how it's all religious....which is very doubtful in my opinion your effort would be better spent working for passage of a state law and you would then have your Sunday sales.
I will give you that a few people are probably opposed on religious grounds. But a greater number are comfortable with how things work now and see no reason to change.....and a number more....people like me that don't drink......just flat don't care. And that is not all about religion.
But as seriouslyfolks said.....it appears religion is the only ground you want to fight it on and that is the wrong ground. JMO
February 11, 2010 at 6:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
bisquit I don't believe anyone could have said it better than you just did in your last post.
Funny how things go from no smoking to liquor stores being open on Sundays.
One thing I've noticed in my yrs in the retail business is this;
No matter whether a business posts it's hrs or not,no matter if that business hasn't been open (on Saturdays for instance) for yrs, no matter what your closing time is. Somebody is going to bitch,whine and moan if they can't be there when you are. Somebody will come at 5:05 expect you to stay till their done because it's their time not yours.
It's the me world not our world.
Not that I haven't tried to work to keep those people happy but some days you want to just whack them in the head and tell them to get a life.
February 11, 2010 at 7:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy,
You say, you "just flat don't care" and therefore the Sunday sales ban is fine as it is. Well, I say that is the problem with the world today. You know that old saying about "First they came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew, so I did nothing." (or however that goes) Just because you don't buy booze doesn't mean you shouldn't care. Think about someone other than yourself for a change. Like you said, it's "unfair restriction of trade" and I'm not about to let that happen to my fellow citizens. You, on the other hand, are content with such atrocities because it doesn't directly impact you. Sad....
Basically you are saying that some store owners want the city laws to be a scape goat for them not being open on Sunday. If the law says they can't be open, it isn't their fault. Right? I say that is horse-pucky. If I discovered my favorite liquor store was trying to keep the Sunday sales ban in place just so they can blame the law to have Sunday off, I'll take my business elsewhere. Talk about your all-time backfires...
tbluma,
I wouldn't blame the liquor store or gripe about it being closed on Sunday if it was actually their choice. The fact is that they have no choice in the matter! That's what I'm upset about! Geesh! As I said, I don't see how the State can nullify city smoking bans while letting Sunday sales bans continue. That is how they are related, pal.
'enry
February 11, 2010 at 8:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"You know that old saying about "First they came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew, so I did nothing."
'enry
You would be one of the ones coming for them.
February 11, 2010 at 8:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
well said seriously
February 11, 2010 at 9:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
What is that supposed to mean?
'enry
February 11, 2010 at 10:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I think it means that tbluma liked what I wrote.
February 11, 2010 at 11:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Just curious, can anyone tell me why state law forbids liquor to be sold on Sundays? What's the history on this?
February 12, 2010 at 12:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
'enry
When I said I didn't care it meant just that. I don't care that you can't buy liquor on Sundays.....I don't care if you can buy liquor on Sundays. I don't care either way.
Because of that I am unwilling to invest the time or effort into the issue that you seem to want everybody to so you can get your drink. I don't care if you have it, I'm just not willing to fight to help you get it.
I am very familiar with the statement you referenced (incorrectly) about the Jews in Germany under the Third Reich. In fact I used it to oppose imposition of the smoking ban at a city council meeting on the subject last year that later became known as the slippery slope speech. But if I was to apply that to something again it would be something I feel much more passionately about than I do this issue.
Now...in your last post...you spent two paragraphs presenting arguments as to what was fueling the current ban on Sunday sales....and you never once mentioned religion. Good Boy 'enry.....maybe you have finally learned it is not a religious argument....which is all I was trying to say in my post anyway.
One final note....if you are buying your liquor in Emporia at present there is a fair chance your store is doing exactly what you said would cause you to take your business elsewhere. Just remember Olpe and Chase County probably don't want the Emporia stores to change anything either because it would hurt their business.
February 12, 2010 at 3:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
irishemporia
I think the ban on Sundays sales goes back pretty much to the so-called blue laws that used to forbid all but essential business on Sundays. They were still largely in effect when I was growing up although food and gasoline and stuff like that were exempted by then.
And yes...the Blue Laws were at least justified on religious grounds...but in reality were supported by the business community for many of the reasons stated above that had nothing to do with religion. Once the crack developed and the big box chains were allowed to open longer hours and seven days a week...mom and pop had no choice but to follow suit or die....eventually most of them died anyway.
Sunday liquor sales now would possibly lead to the eventual sale in grocery stores etc., which would ultimately destroy the liquor store business also. JMO
February 12, 2010 at 3:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Thank You tbluma
February 12, 2010 at 3:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Written by Martain Niemoller.......Protestant minister and anti_Hitler activist in Germany prior to WWII
February 12, 2010 at 4:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
The above is more properly used to oppose the removal of rights already held.....than for the addition of rights not yet granted.....JMO
February 12, 2010 at 4:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_pUfx...
Good Morning Biscuitboy!
February 12, 2010 at 4:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Good Morning to you koalemos
February 12, 2010 at 6:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I just realized that I massacred the spelling of Martin Niemoller's name.....Sorry about that Martin...☺
February 12, 2010 at 8:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy
Thanks for the info on that poem.
February 12, 2010 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Your welcome seriouslyfolks. I often refer to that as such a clear example of the slippery slope we start down when we turn a blind eye to what is being done to people different than us.
February 12, 2010 at 9:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I really like that. I had similar thoughts when the smoking ban debate was going on and when I stood up for those Muslim guys at work. Although I am not a Muslim and I don't smoke or drink or even go to bars who's to say that it won't be the things I am or do that "they" come after next.
February 12, 2010 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Yes that was the basis for my slippery slope statement before the city commission concerning the smoking ban. Where will the health police turn next? And once their sin tax excesses there reduces smokers to a point where the cash cow of tobacco taxes dries up.....they will turn someplace next. When they do they may be looking straight at you...or me....or 'enry
February 12, 2010 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
It is so ironic to me that 'enry uses this as an attempt to shame me into supporting his attempt to establish a new right he at present doesn't have....after having ignored this same concept in gleefully ripping from smokers rights they had possessed for decades.
February 12, 2010 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Don't forget the "health" taxes and the "environment" taxes etc. these sort of liberty robbing things can come from many different places and ideologies. We err when we don't recognize this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv9OSx...
February 12, 2010 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Actually I think I was probably including them in what I euphemistically called a "sin" tax.
February 12, 2010 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Oh OK.
It's funny we have conversations going on in two different threads and we keep bouncing back and forth. lol
February 12, 2010 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Well I guess it just proves that we can multi-task..huh...
February 12, 2010 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Yeah, but it makes my head hurt. LOL
February 12, 2010 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy,
When you originally used the poem for the smoking debate, your logic was seriously flawed. Think about it... the smokers were the ones harming others with SHS. The smoking ban came along and made them stop harming others. In the poem, the Germans were the ones doing harm. So...are you saying the smokers were the equivalent to the Germans in the poem because they were both harming people? See? It just doesn't add up.
My application of the poem to the Sunday sales ban is more accurate because I wasn't harming anyone with my Sunday sales, yet "they" came along and put a ban on it while you stood by saying you "don't care" because you don't buy booze on Sunday. Little do you know, if you don't help stop such injustices, "they" will eventually come and take something you do enjoy. Hence, the poem fits.
The poem doesn't make sense when applied to the smoking ban because you didn't have the right to harm others in the first place so "they" didn't come for you to take your rights away. Plus, harming others is just wrong and that is why I supported the ban. You, on the other hand, don't care about the Sunday sales ban simply because it doesn't apply to you. I wish people like you would think about others for a change and how such bans take away rights of innocent people. Smokers who harm others with SHS are not innocent people and therefore shouldn't be allowed to continue harming others. I, on the other hand, wouldn't be harming others by buying booze on Sunday, so there is no reason for it to be banned. (other than to supposedly make God happy)
'enry
February 12, 2010 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LAZER (anonymous) says...
I find it interesting that Republican Conservatives who scream every day about smaller government, local control, etc...want to take away local control.
But, those people have no use for any Republican--who doesn't have the same "pedigree" as they. RHINOS, they call them.
Kansas Republican Conservatives DON'T WANT Washington telling people in Kansas how to live, yet, our Republican Conservatives want to tell local communities how to do.
There is a disconnect there.
Maybe, as they say...it is "...do as I say, not as I do...".
February 12, 2010 at 12:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I have no intention of rearguing the smoking ban with you. The die has been cast and your side won.....enjoy your victory. But you can't argue the greater public good in your quest to now force your desires down the throats of the liquor store owners. There is no greater public good in your need to be allowed to buy your liquor anytime you want.
The Germans were not coming after people to further those people's well being nor to expand their rights. They were coming after them to eliminate their rights. Your right to buy liquor on Sundays in Kansas has never been established as a right in the first place so this does not apply to you at all. At present you have no right to take away.
February 12, 2010 at 1:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
They didn't come along and put a ban on it......the ban was always on it. Hell, you think you have it bad now. I was a full grown man before you had the right in Kansas to go into a bar or restaurant and order a drink any day of the week. You couldn't buy a drink at all in this state except in liquor stores (no Sunday Sales) or private clubs generally restricting members to military veterans.
February 12, 2010 at 1:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I guess this does mean you have finally relented in your insistence that this is a religious argument....which again is the only reason I entered it at all.
February 12, 2010 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
He, He, He, Ho, Ho, HAH, HAH, HAH, OhHenry, Chortle, Chortle, Chortle, choke, choke, choke, Hah, Hah, Hah, OhHenry, you are such a candy bar. Sorry, just having a hysterical break over your comments. HAH, HAH, HAH, Snicker, Sniker. And no I will not get into an orguement with you about smokers rights vs Drinkers rights.
February 12, 2010 at 1:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Oh Henry and Snickers in one post!! LOL
February 12, 2010 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy,
You say, "There is no greater public good in your need to be allowed to buy your liquor anytime you want."
What about freedom? Don't you cherish your freedoms? Wouldn't any kind of freedom (that doesn't harm anyone) be a benefit the public? Protecting freedoms would benefit the greater public good, correct? You are an American after all, are you not?
The reason I bring up religion as the basis of the Sunday sales ban is because that is actually how it begun. I take it personally when someone else's religion determines when I can buy/sell a legal product. You claim it's not about religion anymore. That's fine, but if you are going to rob me of my freedom, you need to come up with a better reason than "some owners don't want to sell on Sunday". Again, why should their personal preference restrict my freedoms?
methusla,
I know you won't get into the argument because it's an argument you (and the other pro-SHS crew) can't win. There are (and have been) laws in place to prevent drinkers from harming others with their actions. Not until the smoking ban were smokers rightfully held responsible for their harmful actions. I don't think either group should harm other people, but what does that have to do with buying booze on Sunday? Why rob me of that right when it wouldn't hurt anyone?
Smoking ban = necessary law to protect the public
Sunday sales ban = wrongful, unconstitutional government control
Those are the facts and, again, it's an argument you can't win.
'enry
February 12, 2010 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
You see it your way....I see it mine. I will fight for the freedoms that are important to me.....I will leave others to fight for freedoms that mean nothing to me. If occasionally we can come together in a mutual fight...all's well and good....but in my opinion....you trampled all over the rights of smokers to establish a right that didn't previously exist to non-smokers. That being the right to go unhindered anywhere they wanted without regard to what rights you were trampling that already existed for others.
So don't come talking up your great respect for the rights of others to me because I have already seen how much you care about the rights of those that don't fit your view of the world. Then you bad-mouth religion.....Give me a break. The only rights you care about are the ones that benefit you...that also sounds like the Nazis huh!
February 12, 2010 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
And there were no laws in place before the smoking ban to protect non-smokers, if only they would have more of a decision making brain than a candy bar ! Last comment on this subject.
February 12, 2010 at 2:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
HenryVIII,
Instead of just arguing your point on here, may i make a suggestion?
Call Tracy at the city managers office and request time on a upcoming commission meeting. Present you case to them and ask them to put it on the next election. There are time constraints involved getting this on the ballot, so put down the zima and geterdone.
just a thought.
February 12, 2010 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
methusla,
Like I said, you can't win the argument. Instead, you resort to insulting my intelligence by suggesting I'm no smarter than a candy bar. I get it, like my username...ha, ha...you are so funny... (sarcasm)
Sorry. I guess I need to clarify for some of "you people". Sure, there were SOME restrictions on where a smoker could harm others with SHS before the smoking ban. Unfortunately, this only benefitted those who worked in government buildings all day. Well, I guess I was protected the one day a year I went to the courthouse to pay my tags and taxes for my car! For some of "you people" one day free of SHS may be good enough, but I hardly think that compensated me for the harm I sustained every other day of the year at the hands of ruthless smokers.
Steve_Corbin,
Zima? How dare you, sir, how dare you...
Seriously, though, why does it even need to be on the ballot? Why should people like you and biscuitboy (who doesn't care) be able to vote on when I can buy/sell a legal product? Plus, I'm not much of a public speaker, so I would only damage my cause. I don’t feel like being ridiculed in by the townsfolk in person.
'enry
February 12, 2010 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
Hey! I just saw the survey/poll on the Gazette site! So far, it looks to be going in my favor!
http://www.emporiagazette.com/polls/2...
'enry
February 12, 2010 at 4:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
'enry
When did I ever say I would vote against Sunday liquor sales.....I only said I would not work (or fight) for its passage. If it comes up for a vote...and I vote at all in the election....I will vote in favor of it. If however it is the only thing on the ballot I probably would not vote at all...because I just don't care.
If I voted in favor of it however it would be solely on the premise that I believe it is an unfair restriction of trade for one group of store owners to be able to decide what hours their competitors should be allowed to keep. It would have nothing to do with your ridiculous assertion that it is somehow in the greater public good.....and even less to do with your wanting me to.
If that were the only reason I voted my vote would be no....and you could file that under paybacks are hell.
February 12, 2010 at 5:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I believe it is an unfair restriction of trade in the same way that I felt it was an unfair restriction of trade for a one group of people to control how businesses should operate their business. Especially since the business owners that wanted to already had the right to chose to go non-smoking....and the customers and employees of those businesses already had to right to chose accordingly.
In fact one of the arguments used to support your ban was it was unfair for some businesses to allow smoking which then took business away from the one's that didn't. Talk about convoluted logic.
February 12, 2010 at 5:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
'enry
I'm not sure how much your poll shows anyway.
It ask if Emporia should allow Sunday liquor sales? Guess what...Emporia already allows Sunday liquor sales in restaurants....and that was approved by voters years ago.
Allowing liquor store sales on Sunday...as well as beer sales in grocery and conv. stores on Sunday...however have not faired nearly as well when the question has come up in the past. I wonder if people really know what they are voting for here?
February 12, 2010 at 5:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mslater (Matt Slater) says...
I think the smoking ban is a really bad...something something, Hey! They Olympics are starting!
February 12, 2010 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Hey, candy bar brain, a.k.a. Oh Henry, smoking was already banned or prohibited in all hospitals, schools, courthouses, etc., and those businesses/buildings that wished to prohibit/ban smoking by posting a " No Smoking Allowed " sign in a conspicuous place so everyone knew and had the ability to decide whether to enter such a building and " harm " themselves. What is your problem, you don' t have the gray matter to decide whether you can or want to protect yourself without " Opressing " others to your way of thinking, living .
Apparantely you do drink alcoholic spirits. Have you asked yourself, why do I drink ? Is it because I like to ? Is it because I have to ? Is it because I am addicted/Alcoholic ? Is it because I do it to be with friends and socialize ? Am I harming anyone else because of my drinking ? Have you asked anyone else what they think of your drinking ? Have you asked yourself how you would feel if you were forced to leave your friends inside a social setting and have to go outside in all kinds of weather and drink your drink ?
I don' t believe you have asked yourself any of these questions or really have the ability to take a good hard look at your selfish, bigoted self and see just how selfish and bigoted you really are !
And before you go off and melt your candy bar brain into hot chocolate, remember this I do not smoke, I may drink maybe 6 beers a year and yet I have no objection to people smoking or drinking and I do have the common sense, respect for others and ability to decide to either leave or not enter a place that does allow smoking, drinking or both. Which apparantely is something you cannot do or will not do !
This is the last I will say on the matter !
February 12, 2010 at 5:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
yeah meth
February 12, 2010 at 7:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
newme314 (anonymous) says...
Everyone is missing the point here. This article is not about Sunday liquor sales. It is about the reversal of the smoking ban in establishments with ventilated rooms. I work in a resturant where the sales have decreased since the smoking ban, I started working there after the ban, but have been told by several of my co-workers that sales went down when it went into affect. When sales are down so are the tips. Many people depend on tips to help support their families. I am not saying that non-smokers dont have rights, but smokers have rights as well. So, stay on this subject and not bounce between the two.
February 13, 2010 at 5:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Yea 'enry.....stay on topic. If I understand things correctly the statewide smoking ban bill would return things to near the point where they were before 'enry and friends started their crusade to garner more "freedom" for all of us. If my understanding is correct I would definitely support the statewide ban because it is far preferable to the freedoms that "enry and friends got for us last year.
Go statewide ban...Go freedom.....Go home to drink 'enry....but not on Sundays....☺☺☺
February 13, 2010 at 6:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
newme314,
YOU ARE WRONG!
Sales at your restaurant are not down because of the smoking ban.
They are down because of the economy or because of bad food or mediocre service. The sales are down because of your restaurants inability to progress and adapt.
I know this for a fact because the people who pushed for the ban said it wouldn't hurt sales, and they are SMART. They said there will be so many more non-smokers flooding these newly smoke free places our business would increase.
Have you and your co-workers compared tips from smokers versus non-smokers?
If you read this I hope you take it in the sarcastic vein in which it was written.
February 13, 2010 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
But Steve...This is about freedom...Don't you get that?....svi
svi=sarcastic vein intended
February 13, 2010 at 8:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
bisuitboy,
Freedom?
What is freedom?
That's the Trillion Dollar, (in today dollars), question.
February 13, 2010 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I would wonder if newme314 is of voting age and if so how they voted on our city question last year?
I know four employees that that have suffered with reduced wages and tips since last year but there is no doubt that they are no longer Forced to work in a smoke filled environment.
They are working in a smoke FREE place, they are happy:)
February 13, 2010 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
les_herschler (anonymous) says...
So let me get this straight.... Business owners want to choose whether to allow smoking on their property, but don't want to choose whether to allow Sunday liquor sales.
And didn't the voters of Emporia already decide these issues?
Les Herschler
Emporian for 7 years
February 13, 2010 at 10:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Yeah sorta.
Seriously R. Folks
fictional character for a few years now
February 13, 2010 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Maybe I'm wrong, but seems to me there is a bit of hypocrisy going on here. As a business owner, I'd want to choose both.
February 13, 2010 at 10:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I'm guessing that there are different business owners that have different opinions on both subjects.
February 13, 2010 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Les......
Let me try and clear this up. A few business owners (some of those involved in the package store liquor business) want to remain closed on Sundays. Since they want to remain closed on Sundays they also want their competitors (the other package liquor store owners that want to open on Sundays) to stay closed also.
With the local option law in effect they then have opposed all attempts to change that local law thereby allowing said stores to be open on Sunday. This allows them to remain closed and not risk losing some of their business to the store that might open. This has come to a vote several times over the years and each time the attempt to allow Sunday sales at package stores has failed. But it all concerns local ordinances...not state law. The state at presents lets the locality decide.
None of this has any thing to do with the sale of liquor in clubs and restaurants. That is covered by a state law that was approved by the voters several years ago. It does however apply to the sale of beer in grocery stores.
And none of it has anything to do with a different local law that was narrowly approved by voters last year that prohibited smoking in all businesses including bars and restaurants where it had previously been allowed. Many of the owners of said bars and restaurants fought passage of that local law arguing that it would be bad for their business, They also argued that as a business owner they should be allowed to operate their business as they saw fit withing the confines of state not local law.
That is exactly what the owners of the package liquor stores are arguing that want to open on Sunday. They want a state law that supersedes the local ordinance that would allow them the chance to make choices about how they run their businesses.
Different businesses..... different owners.....different question....but same problem.
February 13, 2010 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I may not have made it clear that many (not all--but many) restaurant and bar owners view passage of a less restrictive state law banning smoking as a back door opportunity for them to regain some control over how they operate their businesses. That's because the state law would hopefully super cede the very restrictive local ordinance. There really is no hypocrisy here at all.
February 13, 2010 at 11:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
i hadn't heard any hypocrisy from any business owner on here. Just crack ranting about Sunday liquor sales.
February 13, 2010 at 12:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Very good explanation P-Man.
February 13, 2010 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Thanks Steve.
Have you ever noticed how 'enry disappears every weekend pretty much like crack used to do. That's just one of many amazing coincidences about those two. If I hadn't been told differently one would almost think they were the same person....
February 13, 2010 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
yes, even if not for that ,it is the attitude.
MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME.
February 13, 2010 at 12:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
It's a great day in Emporia!
great day for a nap that is>
February 13, 2010 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I agree....so this is biscuitboy saying so long for now.....And Goodnight Mrs Calabash.....wherever you are......
February 13, 2010 at 1:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Steve_Corbin and biscuitboy
You are both right about this whole Statewide smoking ordinance being about " Freedom " , as was the local smoking ban ordinance. Steve, you asked " What is Freedom " .
Well, the only thing I can do is direct you to the following,
free·dom (frdm)
n.
1. The condition of being free of restraints.
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
3.
a. Political independence.
b. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
4. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
5. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
6. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
7. Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.
8.
a. The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
b. The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
9. A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: "the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form" (John W. Aldridge).
All you need to do is choose which one of the definitions applies to you/us as a citizen of the U.S.A., which by the way, by way of the Constitution and Bill of Rights proclaims/guarantees the U.S.A. as well as its citizens to be " Free", have " Freedom " from forced " Opression ", unjust restraints, constraints, etc., by individuals, organizations, governments .
I personally believe that all 9 of the definitions of " Freedom " guaranteed to us by the Constitutiion and Bill of Rights have been, are and will be violated by those who believe they deserve and are entitled to more " Freedoms " based either on their beliefs, way of living, Social Status, etc..
Even thought it has been said that HenryVIII and crackinsack are not one in the same, I am not convinced that they are not one in the same.
February 13, 2010 at 1:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
les_herschler (anonymous) says...
I say we let the business owners run their business how they see fit...smoking or not...sunday liquor or not...
Survival of the fittest.
February 13, 2010 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
les_herschler
And there you have the whole concept of " Freedom " .
February 13, 2010 at 2:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dido1969 (anonymous) says...
Tax 'em all...regulate small business until they dry up...or move away and take the jobs with 'em. I've known some addicted smokers but I've never met anyone as hooked on nicotine the way the state and county government are hooked on tax dollars.
Kansas shared in the huge settlement with the Giant Tobacco Demons...yet even the state admits that less than 2% of that money went to its intended purpose. And why does Emporia and other regional schools need more money, after all, the lottery will pay for that...minus a few nominal and sundry expenses off the top...
Wake up people, term limits are the top priority. Until then kick the tax dollar junkies out of office after one term. Let them learn to live on a budget just like everyone else has to.
The tax and spend/slash and burn policies that tax something out of existence and the morons who weep crocodile tears that now their special warm & fuzzy pet projects will have to go without...but wait, we can continue to raise sales and property tax and we will all be saved.
Pu-lease!!! Wake up and smell the coffee.
February 13, 2010 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I agree les...and if I get the opportunity to vote I will vote that way on both issues...not just on one as some on here advocate.
February 13, 2010 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
Les and Bisquit
My thoughts exactly
February 13, 2010 at 4:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mslater (Matt Slater) says...
Dido1969,
Dead on accurate! To me it feels like we are being taxed, but we don't have any representation whatsoever. And now thanks to the losers in Congress, there is no limit on how much a corporation can contribute to a political campaign. Are you "pooping" me? Every single person who voted for that should be A) hanging their heads in shame, and B) voted the hell out of office, if not impeached, and whatever district court allowed that to happen should be abolished immediately.
I say ask every politician who is campaigning if they would vote for term limits, and if they say no, then don't vote for them. This has to be in my top 3 candidate considerations.
Matt
February 13, 2010 at 5:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Over the years, governments have excommunicated, slit the lips of, and even poured molton lead down the throats of those who defied the smoking ban. Hitler was a one pack a day smoker in his youth but, he came to consider tobacco a Jewish habit, so he went after the tobacco industry. In those days the U.S. military enclosed a pack of cigarettes for their fighting men. Today our tobacco policy more closely resembles that of Nazi Germany and even today's military is considering a smoking ban. If the current campaign for the government run health care succeads, expect a whole bunch of new regulations. A cigar in your hand is a small act of defiance against big government, big oppressive government that sends truckers to Beto Junction truck stops. Happy Valintine Day and remember the fragrance always stays in the hand that gives the rose. How's that for putting the needle in and giving it a twist? I hope you start your day with a good laugh.
February 14, 2010 at 12:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
let's get over it!
February 15, 2010 at 7:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Someone from the Gazette is blowing smoke on this thread!
it is kinda making a joke of the paper, really wish you would stop.
JMO
February 15, 2010 at 7:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
methusla,
Ok, so I guess if I became a teacher or checked myself into the hospital I'd be safe from SHS... Maybe I should become a lawyer since it wasn't allowed in court... Still, fella, that only protects like 1% of the adult population. Previous restrictions were hardly sufficient.
Yeah, I do know how to protect myself from harm, but when it comes to defending against SHS, my hands were tied by the law. For instance, suppose I walked into a bar and a smoker harmed me with SHS, so I harmed him with my fist. Now I'm the one going to jail simply because I acted in self defense to protect myself. Why was the smoker's form of harming others ok and mine wasn't? Well, thanks to the smoking ban, it's not any more.
You're asking about my drinking habit as if it's the same as smoking in public, but it's not even close. Look, I don't care if smokers smoke and harm themselves. It's their right to harm themselves with tobacco same as it is my right to harm myself with alcohol or cheeseburgers. What I do have a problem with is smokers harming OTHERS with their habit. You don't see me harming others with my booze, now do you? If I was unable to drink indoors without harming others, I'd be more than willing to step outside to drink, but, in reality, it's totally unnecessary because the consumption of alcohol doesn't harm those near me. Don't you get that?
les_herschler,
You said, "Business owners want to choose whether to allow smoking on their property, but don't want to choose whether to allow Sunday liquor sales." My thoughts exactly! They're hypocrites, I say! They don't care about personal freedoms only their MONEY! Greedy businesses should not be allowed to force the public to suffer just so they can make an extra buck.
biscuitboy and Steve_Corbin,
In case you weren't aware, last weekend was Valentine's Day and the ol' lady wouldn't have taken kindly to me spending all weekend on the computer. Perhaps you lads don't have such issues, but I'm still pretty whipped... I'm usually busier (drinking mostly) on the weekends anyway, but I've certainly posted on the weekends before. Just look at my user profile and go through the dates if you're so curious.
'enry
February 15, 2010 at 10:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
There is one fact that you always conveniently leave out 'enry. That fact is that while the law may have only restricted smoking in certain areas such as government buildings and hospitals there was something else at work restricting smoking in a lot more places. This was the free market. There were very few places that allowed smoking before the ban. The reason for this is that the demand for smoke free places was increasing so businesses obliged. I have worked at about 4 different places in the last 15 years and none of them allowed smoking inside, one of them didn't allow it on the property. I can't think of a non bar type business that allowed smoking inside. The problem was not as wide spread as you like to make it out to have been and avoiding shs to "protect" yourself was simple. Don't you get that?
February 15, 2010 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks,
Yeah, I get that. What if my skill set limits me to working as a bartender? What if I've never learned to do anything besides wait tables? Are you saying I don't deserve to breathe healthy air while I work? What if I really just love going out for a drink? Do I not have the freedom to do this without being harmed by others?
Should we really allow the people doing harm to others determine where the rest of us can and can't go? You know, threatening harm just to get your way. Is that the precedent you want to set? What's next? "Oh, we shouldn't go to that grocery store because they shoot customers and their employees with pellet guns when you walk in the door. Yeah, I know it's not right to harm others, but let's just ignore it and let the free market sort it out. Never mind the fact harming others is ILLEGAL!" I think there is a term for people who threaten harm if their demands aren't met, but I wouldn’t dare use it to describe smokers...
'enry
February 15, 2010 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
No one was forcing anyone to go around smoke and it was easy to avoid and getting easier. More legislation was not necessary. Tyson foods among other businesses in town offer jobs with pretty good pay to people with little or no skills. Times are hard right now when it comes to getting a job and apparently this ban has made it even harder for some.
February 15, 2010 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I have the choice to open on Sunday.
I don't have the choice to allow smoking.
So how am I being a hypocrite?
Oh I am greedy all right, but?
February 15, 2010 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
And how exactly is a "greedy" liquor store owner making you suffer if they are not open on Sundays?
February 15, 2010 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
It sounds like Henry wants to force the liquor store owners to be open on Sundays.
Much like forcing bars to ban smoking.
Because he couldn't maker the choice to go to non-smoking bars.
And he doesn't have the sense to buy his weekend booze on Sat. he wants to FORCE a liquor store clerk to work on Sundays.
Who's being greedy now?
February 15, 2010 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks,
Even IF it was easy to avoid for some, why must ANYONE suffer at the hands of careless smokers? If the smoking ban saves one innocent bystander from getting cancer isn't it worth it? Why do smokers even have the opportunity to harm others? Smoking is only a habit, preference, or pastime. For some, shooting firearms is a pastime. Shooting firearms may be dangerous to the shooter, but it's their right to take that risk on themselves. Are you saying shooters should be able to harm others with their habit too? If I opened a store downtown, could I allow my customers to shoot others who happened to walk in? Heck, my one store is “easy for most people to avoid” so why not allow it? Your logic of “it only harms a few” doesn't make any sense. Harm is harm and SHS should not be an exception to the rule.
Steve_Corbin,
It’s simple. You have the choice to be open on Sunday because that doesn't allow people to be harmed by the actions of others. You don't have the choice to allow smoking because that would mean your customers and employees would be harmed by the actions of others. You don't have the choice to serve poisoned beer either. You don't have the choice to block the fire escapes. You don't have the choice to allow shootings in your bar. It's about public safety and the guaranteed right we all have to not to be harmed by the actions of others.
I don't think you're personally being a hypocrite. It's just that some businesses don't want to be told they can't allow SHS whereas other businesses want the government to force them to be closed on Sunday. Which is it? In favor of government control or not? For business owners, it seems to boil down to whatever is more profitable; not the preservation personal rights like the pro-SHS crowd would have us believe.
The greedy liquor store owner is allowing me to suffer because they support unconstitutional government control. They are asking the government to strip me of my rights as a citizen to buy and sell a legal product on any given day of the week. They want to be closed on Sunday? That is just fine. Why take the rights of others away in the process when they would still have the option to be closed even if the Sunday sales ban was abolished? I suffer because they only care about money; not our rights as citizens. I do not want to force the liquor stores to do anything. I just want them to have the freedom to do as they choose as long as it doesn't allow people to be harmed by others. If the law allowed Sunday sales and my favorite stored CHOSE to be closed on Sunday; that is their loss. I will frequent another store or maybe open my own to capitalize on all the business they are missing out on.
'enry
February 15, 2010 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
What if henry's wife doesn't give him enough money on Saturday to buy enough booze to last till Monday?
February 15, 2010 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Henry, please show me where it is your RIGHT to buy booze on Sunday?
That poor liquor store clerk needs a day off, or do you not care?
Remember the quote, "It's for the employees"?
Just like the anti-smoking group YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT to change the law in Emporia, yet you refuse to do it.
Put your money where you mouth is and change the law.
Until then, "quityourbitchenaboutboozenotbeingsoldinemporiaonsundays.
February 15, 2010 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
koalemos,
Exactly!
Steve_Corbin,
It's a legal product. If I want to sell or purchase it, I should be allowed to do so any darn day of the week. The ban on Sunday sales is unjustified, based solely on religious beliefs, and is therefore unconstitutional.
They can have the day off, but what does that have to do with the law? Take Olpe, for instance. They could close on Sunday if they wanted, but at least they have the choice!
Sorry, I thought these forums were a place to express opinions, but I guess I can't do that because you disagree and are tired of hearing it. Sorry, pal! Lesson learned.
'enry
February 15, 2010 at 12:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
Henry, If the guy in you neighborhood who sells booze on Sunday thought you could be trusted, you would know where to buy booze in Emporia on Sundays.
They have tax free cigarettes on the market now too.
February 15, 2010 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
The Sunday ban in Kansas WAS based on religious beliefs and was changed to allow cities to decide.
Emporia has voted at least once to keep it that way.
Those Greedy store owners didn't do it, the voter did.
MUCH LIKE THE MAJORITY of 8 VOTED TO BAN SMOKING IN EMPORIA.
The majority rules, right?
Have you even asked the store owner where you buy your beverages what they think? Could you find 1 store owner that would like to be open on Sundays?
If you can, approach them about seeing if it could be put on the ballot again.
I would vote for it, as many others would.
February 15, 2010 at 12:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
The people who sell 30 packs of Bud Light for $40 on Sunday would probably vote against it.
February 15, 2010 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Henry,
I apologize for being a little testy, and you are correct these forums are for posting our opinions.
It's just I don't find it to be that big of deal to me.
Much like stepping outside a business to smoke, I don't think it's that big of deal to drive to Olpe to buy booze.
THEY ARE GREAT PEOPLE down there.
February 15, 2010 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Maybe I get a little peeved when people on here always blame those "Greedy Business Owners" for all of our problems.
February 15, 2010 at 12:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Oh, and good one koalemos!
February 15, 2010 at 12:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
If we could get a law passed that forces liquor store owners to check green cards before selling booze, "small" businesses would benefit seven days a week. I'm just grateful to the great people in Olpe for making Latinos feel less than welcome. Boosts local Sunday sales if you know what I mean...
February 15, 2010 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
Steve,
While it wasn't warranted, thanks for the apology anyway. I don't mean to imply you (and other owners) are really that greedy. It just seems to me that when a business feels strongly about something it often has to do with money. You have the right to make as much money as you can, but I think public safety and the protection of an individual's rights should be more important than money in these cases.
koalemos,
Green cards? You lost me on that one...
'enry
February 15, 2010 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
Once I was fishing and met some people from El Salvador. When I was leaving the fishing hole they invited me over to their house for a fish fry. While waiting for the food to be prepared we were drinking beer and one of the men was sent to the liquor store to buy more beer. He returned without beer and said that the guy at the liquor store wouldn't sell him beer without ID. I asked him if he forgot his wallet and he said "No tiene ID." I asked him how he drove over to the liquor store if he didn't have a driver license. He said "el coche funciona muy bien."
the term "Green Card" means documents that verifies a legal immigration status. The document could be a resident alien identification card, a student visa, a tourist visa, a temporary work permit, a photo ID and a birth certificate, a US military ID or a valid US Passport.
February 15, 2010 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Did you explain the concept of law to your new friend?
February 15, 2010 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Oh henry
You, state and I quote, " For instance, suppose I walked into a bar and a smoker harmed me with SHS, so I harmed him with my fist. " Yes, you will be going to jail, as your action was premeditated, planned and uncalled for, as well as unprovoked, as all you would have to have done is leave. Are you also so poor sighted or blind that you cannot see that smoking is allowed in the place that you are dead set on entering, because you want or need to cause either harm to your self or dead set on having a confrontation with someone?
If you knew that a place had radiation present or the noise would cause you to go deaf or something was present that could possibly cause you to loose your eye sight, would you still insist on entering such a place ?
You are exposed to harm of all kinds, in you home and when you are out in the public, whether you are inside or outside. For instance, all sorts of communicable diseases, that almost everyone can carry and pass on to you, H1N1, Chicken Pox, Measles, Pneumonia, influenza, Colds, Mumps, etc., of which anyone of these could possibly be/turn deadly or cause severe harm. And you and your smoking ban cohorts claim that you or the smoking ban movement was not targeting smokers or the businesses that allowed smoking ! You and I both know that it was a " Targeting " campaign .
You have no concept of " Freedom" , except when it comes to your Freedom/Freedoms and then you basically say to hell with everyone elses Freedoms, because you believe your Freedms are the only Freedoms that mean anything . People such as you are more harmful to others, than any smoker/smoking will ever be.
And that goes for anyone who believes that their Freedoms or Rights takes precedence over anyone elses Freedoms or Rights . I have said many, many times, I do not smoke and drink very little and yet I respect everyones Freedom/Right to smoke, Drink and any businesses owners Freedom/Right to run their business as they see fit and allow or prohibit smoking/drinking if they so wish .
Also, enry, how exactly did the previous ordinance dealing with smoking tie your hands, your Freedoms or Rights to do as you, as a supposedly intelligent person, who is supposedly capable of making a decision as to their personal welfare ?
And your lame excuse of comparing smoking to " fisting " someone as being the same thing or comparable is the exact same lame argument that ole crack would and has used .
February 15, 2010 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Let me make myself perfectly clear. Since I do not smoke and drink very little, the idea of allowing or prohibiting smoking, whever, does not affect me in the least. As I am capable of deciding for myself what I should or should not do for my own good, without someone, anyone taking away my Freedom/Right to make that decision for myself !
What does really irk/upset me is the idea that someone believes that their Freedom/Right, belief, way of life, supercedes my Freedoms/Right to decide for myself what to believe, how to live my life, run my business ( if I had a business ) and above all have the audacity to tell me what is best for me and everyone else .
I can not emphasize strongly enough these Freedoms/Rights destroying, Opressive people are the greatest danger to the " Freedoms/Rights of all people .
February 15, 2010 at 3:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
methusla,
You say, and I quote, "If you knew that a place had radiation present or the noise would cause you to go deaf or something was present that could possibly cause you to lose your eye sight, would you still insist on entering such a place?"
I ask you this: Do you honestly think a place of business (open to the public) would be allowed to operate with such dangerous conditions for the customers? I sincerely doubt it would be allowed. It sounds to me like the place would be condemned under such conditions. Why should harm from SHS be the exception?
You mention communicable diseases and whatnot, but that's not the same at all. Not only is it harder to determine who might harm others with potential diseases they carry, it is also harder to control such exposure. SHS exposure is easy to identify and control, so why not eliminate that danger? Just because there are other dangers out of our control does not mean we should ignore the ones we can control.
It wasn't the previous ordinances on smoking that tied my hands, it was the laws prohibiting harming others (assault, battery, etc) that prevented me from "returning the favor".
"Fisting"? No, I don't think I said anything about THAT... that's just nasty...
I can agree with your second post there. The Sunday Sales ban is a perfect example of "these Freedoms/Rights destroying, Oppressive people" of whom you speak. As long as it isn't harming anyone, I don't see why we need the government to tell us how to live. The smoking ban isn't the only law that "tells you how to run a business", you know. How do you feel about the other building codes, sanitation laws, fire codes, etc... that business owners must comply with to make it safe for the public?
'enry
February 15, 2010 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
again henry,
Your statement about safety laws: "that business owners must comply with to make it safe for the public"
There were no studies done that proved the air in any bar or restaurant in Emporia , or anywhere else that I have heard of that proved the air was harming anyone. Bothersome , maybe? Dirtier than outdoor air, yes. Irritating to some, yep.
Don't you think if the harm issue was valid there should be millions of lawsuits settled already in favor of non-smokers being harmed by shs?
Don't you think that the dept. of health would measure indoor air standards of bars if there was real risk from shs?
Anyhow, this should be a moot point as I don't think anything will get passed on the state level this year.
Those in Topeka know you can't pass a statewide law while exempting state owned businesses, (casinos), and if they pass it without the exemption the state would loose their business to the reservations and MO. And the antis won't sit still for a preemptive state law and loose all the local ordinances that have been enacted.
February 15, 2010 at 3:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
Steve,
What about the study our friends at the Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition did?
http://www.cleanairkansas.org/files/E...
Looks pretty conclusive to me!
'enry
February 15, 2010 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Henry, did that "study" name any bar?
Did it site OSHA indoor air standards?
NO !
All it did was state that the air was not as clean inside as it was outside. And nowhere in that biased "study" did it state that the air tested was Harmful.
Now the average person could deduce that outdoor air is cleaner than indoor air , unless you are standing in the middle of the flint hills during pasture burning..Don't need a machine to tell you that, just commom sense. I defy the people that did that study to name the businesses tested. You see they won't because it would open them up to a law suit.
That study was a joke and the only local news source that reported it was the gazette, who had recieved a few thousand dollars, for advertising for the smoking ban. Even Steve Sauders radio station didn't report on it because they knew it was slanted and he was heading up the anti-smoking side.
And while we are at it why hasn't the gazette reported the dollar amounts spent on the smoking ban fight. I know for a fact that Emporia open for business filed their report with the county clerk as required by law. Has Clean Air Emporia?
February 15, 2010 at 5:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
And why are we re-hashing this crap again? It would be easier to solve the abortion issue or prove the existence of God.
February 15, 2010 at 6:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I agree irish.....and all because 'enry can't have his/her way on everything.
February 15, 2010 at 6:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
I think 'enry ought to go to church on Sunday and quit trying to figure out where he's going to get his next booze.If he goes to the right church he can even get some wine for free.
But then that's not the right kind of WHINE for 'enry.
February 15, 2010 at 6:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
Yeah, he could go to church in Olpe and pick up booze on the return trip.
February 15, 2010 at 7:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I think the Gazette should report what was spent on the fight for smothering our rights as smokers.
Come on Gwen, You can post bull pucky on the forums.
Try posting things that are topical and see what happens,
February 15, 2010 at 9:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
About 3 weeks ago i e-mailed the Gazette and asked them if they had checked the financial reports of the groups in this political fight?
No Response, what the Heck?
You know , we reported what we spent, but for some reason, the other side can't seem to.
February 15, 2010 at 9:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
IT CAN'T BE THAT HARD!
How much was spent by Emporia Open for business?
How much was spent by Clean air Emporia?
It has to be filed by state law.
So how hard is it Chris walker to report it?
February 15, 2010 at 9:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Blue_Dog (anonymous) says...
Steve,
If the campaign report is available it should be on file at the county clerk's office in courthouse.
February 15, 2010 at 9:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Oh Henry
And all one has to do is look at who performed the air quality tests at only 5 restaurants amd bars in Emporia and one can see immediatly that the testing was done by a very biased " Clean Air Kansas Organization " . A more prudent and fair text would have been performed by an outside, unbiased, testing firm and every bar, restaurant, businesses would have been tested to get a better test parameter for comparison purposes of just how polluted or harmful the air in all public places, especially those that allowed smoking would have been .
February 15, 2010 at 9:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
les_herschler (anonymous) says...
Dear Gazette: It would be nice to see how the dollars were spent and who donated to whom. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Joe Subscriber
February 15, 2010 at 9:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Blue_Dog.
i know where the report should be
Don't you think the news media should report it?
.
February 15, 2010 at 9:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
And all one has to do is look at the title of the organization that performed and monitored the air quality tests to see what their total end result will be for all Kansans . The title Smoke Free Kansas Coalition, says it all. In order to have a Smoke Free Kansas, there will have to be no smokers at all allowed, anywhere, in Kansas, indoors, outdoors, absolutely nowhere. And that will eventually include your/our homes, cars, etc.
As I have said before and will say again the " Oppression " of certain groups of people has begun and will not stop.
February 15, 2010 at 10:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
If you are not familiar with the term " Oppression " , see the following,
Main Entry: op·pres·sion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpre-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power
2 : a sense of being weighed down in body or mind : depression
Oppression is the act of using power to empower and/or privilege a group at the expense of disempowering, marginalizing, silencing, and subordinating another. It is particularly closely associated with nationalism and derived social systems, wherein identity is built by antagonism to the other. The term itself derives from the idea of being "weighted down."
February 15, 2010 at 10:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
enry,
By the way, the Smoke Free Kansas Coalition is your friends not mine. As anyone or any organization, coalition, etc., whos" sole purpose is taking away or limiting anyones Freedoms/Rights is not a friend of all the people, but a friend to only the " Oppressive " beliefs, actions and minds of a certain few people and is a danger to the very ideals this country was founded on .
February 15, 2010 at 10:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
tbluma,
You won't catch me wasting time/money in church. I go to the movie theater when I want to be entertained by fictional stories. Please go to the forum I started on religion and explain why you think I should go to church. How do you know their really is a God and that he really wants you to sit in church on Sundays?
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
'enry
February 15, 2010 at 11:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I agree...it is the newspaper's responsibility to report on the campaign spending on an issue they reported heavily on....and even took a side on. Come on Mr Walker...I too am a subsciber...and I too want to know. Preston Monroe--subsciber.
Isn't it funny how when some body raises an issue that 'enry can't easily deflect with his patented line of bull...he falls back onto his religion mantra and convienently ignores the rest. Good points methusla!
February 16, 2010 at 6:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
irish is right.
upon further thought, why rehash this?
make sure you go to Mouse Lake this Sat. to watch the polar plunge fun!
February 16, 2010 at 7:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Steve, irish,
You know, it is almost impossible to discuss, argue, hash out, have an opinion on anything, without having someone, taking the opportunity to gloat about how they impossed their particular way of living and thinking upon " everyone else " , and believing that they are/were doing everyone a favor, no matter who it " harmed " by doing so. Or to throw a provocative " digg" at someone, in hopes of provoking an unfortunate, angered response. Apparantely there are some who just need to " gloat " or who cannot move on from past, heated, angered and unfortunate confrontations.
Which makes it very hard not to rehash past debates, opinions.
February 16, 2010 at 7:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
Just curious, but why does it really matter how much $ was spent by each side?
CAE cares about the well being of the people.
EOB only cares about more money in their pockets.
I think EOB is just jealous that more people were willing to give CAE money to help their fellow citizens. The EOB's cause was a selfish one, so you can't expect many people to get onboard. Everyone benefits from CAE's cause, so that's why they had more dough at their disposal.
'enry
February 16, 2010 at 8:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
And you Henry are so " giddy " about " Oppressing " others that it boarders on " Mania " .
February 16, 2010 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
methusla,
You got that backwards, I think. Smokers were the ones "oppressing" others with their SHS. I helped (with my vote) put an end to their oppression. I also want to do away with the "oppressive" Sunday Sales Ban. You might say I'm a liberator! I'm in it for the freedom of the people, not for money. No need to thank me. ; - )
'enry
February 16, 2010 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
The question I have is, was all the money that CAE used given by people willing to give it or was some(most) of it tax dollars(grants) taken from people by the government supposedly to go to education? I know it makes no difference now but I'm still curious.
The R. Dog
February 16, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks,
I don't know about that, Dog. I mean, when you put up a billboard that says "SHS is bad, so vote for the ban" isn't it still "education"? (I liked the smoke-snake billboard the most) It's educating the public on the dangers of SHS, right? Even if that money was used to print the yard signs, it's still educating the public.
That's why we all pay taxes; so the government can either provide services directly to us or give that money to groups (like CAE) and then they'll use the money on projects that benefit the people. If the money is used to help all of us, what's the problem? The reason groups like EOB don’t get any tax money is because they are only looking out for the own best interests (money in their pockets) and not what is best for the general public.
'enry
February 16, 2010 at 10:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
deluvly1 (anonymous) says...
Clean Air Kansas gets grants from nicotine replacement companies to lobby for bans. The Kansas Health Institute, and the Kansas Health Foundation, get grants from nicotine replacement companies to lobby for bans. Tobacco Free Kansas receives grants from same to lobby for bans. American Cancer, Lung, and Heart Associations received over $99,000,000 in their last grant from Nicotine replacement to lobby for bans. Topeka Police Chief said he would respond only to calls from business owners who requested help in dealing with a smoker. The State Democratic Party recieved a very nice contribution from Pfizer, maker of Chantix. Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, Glaxo, total over 100 lobbyists IN KANSAS, who are blowing smoke up our Legislator's skirts 24 hours a day, for smoking bans. Who benefits from smoking bans? Not the long term small business owners. Not the municipalities who got conned into doing this. Not the State, who is losing a fortune in Liquor Excise Tax collection. Follow the money back to Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. They are the "philanthropic arm" of the Johnson and JOhnson "family" of companies. These include Pfizer, (Chantix) and J&J. (Nicoderm, Nicorette, Nicotrol, Nicoderm CQ) They hold tens of millions of shares of J&J stock, and directly benefit from the demonizing of smokers. They do not lobby to stop the selling of tobacco because that would result in nobody wanting to buy their products. Pretty simple, huh? The Legislators who say they are for a ban need to be asked who is lobbying them, and why they refuse to listen to both sides. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ George Washington and Ben Franklin are spinning in their graves! No smoking in a tavern???
February 16, 2010 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Oh, Henry, your are so " maniacly disillussioned " , that you could not see that the smoking ordinances that were already in place were not " Opressing " anyone, least of all those who had the ability to make their own choices. All you and your cohorts accomplished was to change the ordinance, with the help of the government, to actually making you and the government the " Oppressors of peoples Freedom of choice " . And that little selfish move took you, your cohorts and our City Government one step closer to " Tyranny and Tyrannical Rule " ! And now that the State may just throw a monkey wrench into your " Opressive " machinery, it has caused you and your cohorts to get your " Maniacal, Opressive minds and panties in a twist.
And if you have no real concept of what " Tyranny " is, I suggest you look up the concept and true meaning of " Tyranny " . " Tyranny " is the concept that the founding fathers of this country fought to be " Free " of and was the reason for the Declaration Of Independence, Constitution of the United States and The Bill Of Rights, these all came about because of the need for " Freedom/Freedoms " from those who wish to impose their " Opressive, Tyranical " beliefs, way of life and ideals on others.
February 16, 2010 at 11:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
deluvly1,
You act as if the tobacco companies never paid anybody off... The difference is that the tobacco companies were trying to keep people quiet so they could make money while people suffer. The nicotine replacement companies, on the other hand, want to help people. Is it wrong for nicotine replacement companies to want to make money and help people at the same time? At least their product is designed to help their customers, not harm them as along with everyone around them.
methusla,
People who harm others need to be "oppressed". If they seek to harm others with their actions (SHS), then they don't deserve the same freedoms everyone else does. For instance, I am free to drive a car, but I'm not free to drive it in a manner that could harm others. Smokers are free to smoke, but not in a manner that can harm others. Why is that so hard for you to get?
'enry
February 16, 2010 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tbluma (anonymous) says...
"enry I am well aware of your forum that is why a gigged you a little.
Evidently you didn't get it.
Liquor stores not open on Sunday
Free snort at church.
Humor only
February 16, 2010 at 11:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
No Henry, you are the one that does not " Get It "
Please read the following and pay close attention to numbers 2 through 17.
Freedom
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
4. political or national independence.
5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
6. exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from): freedom from fear.
7. the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
8. ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9. frankness of manner or speech.
10. general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.
11. the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12. a liberty taken.
13. a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.
14. civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15. the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
16. the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library.
17. Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination. Compare necessity (def. 7).
Now, read the following and pay close attention the the first 3 of these.
Opression
–noun 1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
2. an act or instance of oppressing.
3. the state of being oppressed.
4. the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.
You may want to look up and read and learn the concept of " Oppressed, Opressor and Tyranny, Tryant, Tyrannical .
Also, the previous smoking ordinance that was in place, did not take away anyones " Freedom/Freedoms", nor did the previous ordinance serve to " Opress " anyone. In fact it gave everyone the Freedom/Freedoms without Opressing anyone. But the smoking ban law as was recently put in place, does just the exact opposite.
February 16, 2010 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Oh yea, Henry I guess I may take it from your statement, " People who harm others need to be "oppressed". If they seek to harm others with their actions (SHS), then they don't deserve the same freedoms everyone else does." , that you don' t give a hoot about anyone elses " Freedoms " or " Rights ", is that a fair assumption on my part and you are the only one whose " Freedoms " and " Rights " mean anthing at all, am I also correct in that assumtion also ?
And since you specifically pointed out (SHS) as an example and the example of causing harm that you and your cohorts are specifically " Targeting " those who smoke and businesses/places that allow smoking, even though you and your cohorts may never frequent such businesses or places ?
And can I also assume that if you visit one of your friends, who smoke, places of residence, you also ask them to leave or step outside their own residence to smoke ?
And if you do not ask them to leave their own residence to smoke, why not, after all they are harming you and you are the one who decided to be there in the first place ?
February 16, 2010 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
methusla,
I am well aware of the definition of "freedom" and "oppression". You are wrong, however, to assume I "don't give a hoot" about the freedoms and rights of others who may not agree with me. I just don't believe people should be allowed the freedom to do as they please when it harms others. I support smokers' freedom to smoke, but I don't think their actions should be tolerated when it harms others. Do you think everyone should enjoy your definitions of freedom? Do you think no one should ever be oppressed no matter what their actions are? You seem to think everyone deserves unlimited freedom no matter what they do or have done. You think a smoker deserves the freedom to smoke wherever they please, right? Should I also have the freedom to drink and drive wherever I please? Should illegal immigrants enjoy the rights of citizens? Should rapists and murderers be allowed to walk the streets like the rest of us? In our society, your actions determine what freedoms you are allowed to enjoy. In a civilized society, you can't expect to be allowed to do whatever you please when it could potentially harm others. Laws that prevent people from harming others is not an example of oppression. I guess you think anarchy is a good model for society, right?
My cohorts and I frequent said places all the time, so I don't know what you're talking about. Even if I didn't, I'd still "give a hoot" about protecting those who did. My friends are well aware that I don't enjoy non-stop smoking in an enclosed space. Most of the time, they remember this and I don't even need to say anything to them in their own home. Besides, their home isn't open to the public, so they have a good idea how the people entering feel regarding their smoke. I think you are forgetting that I have previously stated that I have been known to enjoy a cigar or pipe on occasion, but I don't just plop down beside grandma or a group of kids and blow smoke in their faces. I’m what you would call a ceremonial, considerate smoker; I don’t think my freedom to smoke supersedes the rights of those around me and I don’t think smoking is the most important thing in the world. I recognize that my actions could harm others, so I understand why I can’t just do whatever I please. I shouldn’t drive drunk and I shouldn’t smoke around the general public. I’m fine with both of these restrictions and I don’t consider it oppression or limiting my freedom. You do though, right?
'enry
February 16, 2010 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
I don't think the smoking ban "oppresses" smokers, but it may actually "repress" their actions...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQz...
'enry
February 16, 2010 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Well, Henry, you keep going on and on how others are harming you. And yet you still do not see that you are the one that is soley responsible for your actions, when it comes to harming yourself by doing something stupid like, insisting that it is the other guy that is purposly harming you by as you say, " blowing smoke in your face " . Absolutely no-one forces or forced you into any situation that you believe may harm you and that is the bottom line. With a friend like you, one would need no enemies.
February 16, 2010 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Oh, and enry just a suggestion, change your user name to " God " , as that is how you see yourself.
February 16, 2010 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
Every smoker knows someone just like hank.
February 16, 2010 at 6:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Henry, according to your statement, " I think you are forgetting that I have previously stated that I have been known to enjoy a cigar or pipe on occasion, but I don't just plop down beside grandma or a group of kids and blow smoke in their faces. I’m what you would call a ceremonial, considerate smoker; I don’t think my freedom to smoke supersedes the rights of those around me and I don’t think smoking is the most important thing in the world. "
According to this statement made by you, you do smoke on occasion, so let me see, you have admitted that you do smoke, allbeit on occassion, so evidently you are o.k. with you harming yourself by smoking, but you just don' t want anyone else to smoke because it harms you, is that correct ?
Also, please explain to me what, exactly a " ceremonial smoker" happens to be and exactly what does a ceremonial smoker, smoke ? And have you forgotten that your somewhat biased, CAE handbook makes the claim, that there is no safe amount of exposure to smoke, smokers, SHS . So it does not matter how much or how little you smoke as an " occasional, ceremonial smoker, you are still doing harm to yourself. So you see, by you admitting that you do occasionally take a ceremonial puff of a pipe, cigar, etc., that you are in fact making the choice to harm yourself just as you choose to harm yourself by putting yourself, voluntarily in a situation that you know full well is harmful to you and then have the nerve to blame everyone else for doing harm to you. And then you and your cohorts forceably make them change their life style habits to suit you, makes you the worst kind of " Oppressive ", " Selfish ", bigoted, hypocrite and the worst enemy society and freedom loving peoples could ever have.
February 16, 2010 at 10:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
P.S.
Henry, considerate you are not !
February 16, 2010 at 11:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
methusla,
A "ceremonial smoker", to me, is someone who smokes but not every waking hour of every single day. A ceremonial smoker only smokes on a special occasion and doesn't find it necessary to take breaks from work or inconvenience others with their smoking habit. If I can't smoke somewhere, it's no big deal (not the end of the world) because I don't think it's that important.
You are correct. I am ok with harming myself. Whether it be with tobacco or alcohol or whatever. I'm also fine with other people harming themselves. I'm just not fine with people harming others.
'enry
February 17, 2010 at 12:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mslater (Matt Slater) says...
You should join the Emporia Country Club, Henry! Then maybe the golf shop there would be able to pay the $76,000+ they owe in back taxes! :-D
Matt
February 17, 2010 at 2:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
'enry
Your last post reveals more about you than you may have wanted. You do have a problem with smokers that goes beyond the question of harm to others. You have a problem with smokers that interfere with your view of the world. You have a problem with smokers that don't abide by your "ceremonial" smoking rules....or that might interfere with your idea of when and how your job gets done. You have a problem with people that show no more desire to control when they smoke than you desire to control when you drink. The one common factor in all of the above statements is you.
All of this is over and above what ever opposition you might actually have to smoking as a health hazard. A presumed hazard you have repeatedly in the past stated as your only reason for seeeking a smoking ban.
Your last post revealed that to be horse puckey. It also confirmed to me something I have believed for a long time. That being that you sir are perhaps the most self-centered and arrogant person I have ever known. And that sir is saying a lot coming from me. ☺
February 17, 2010 at 6:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
i am going to have to try harder P-Man.
But a very good rebbutal to old Henry.
February 18, 2010 at 3:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
The KC Star reports that the smoking ban has been sent to the governor, and he is expected to sign it. It also says that this will not "replace stricter local smoking bans now in place"
What does that mean for Emporia's ban?
February 25, 2010 at 6:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
If true it means Emporia's will stand as is. Well at least 'enry ought to be jumping up and down with glee about now.
February 25, 2010 at 6:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
'enry reminds me of that orange dude. Annoying yet I can't help but to watch every episode
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD5UKQ...
February 25, 2010 at 8:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
les_herschler (anonymous) says...
I gotta tell you, it's nice to walk into the bars and not get lost in the fog. I'm not asking for a beating, folks. It's just an observation.
February 25, 2010 at 10:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
les_h
I',m sure that it probably is if you don't smoke. I don't smoke, so I'm sure it would be more pleasant for me also when I went into a bar.....if I went into bars.
Despite the fact that I do neither I was strongly opposed to Emporia's Smoking ban. My opposition was then...and remains still.....one of business owners rights. I rejected the claim of the rights of non-smokers like myself to be protected from the irritation that it admittedly is to us because of my belief we already had protection. We already had the right not to do business with the offending bar owners.
Unfortunately...the good people of Emporia felt otherwise....apparently believing that one person's rights should supersede others.
Now the good people of Kansas apparently agree. So much then for equal rights anyway!
February 26, 2010 at 3:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks
That orange dude is really...really annoying. Seriously annoying!
February 26, 2010 at 3:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Hey this is great. We can all breath easier now.
Healthy air everywhere.
EXCEPT IN STATE OWNED CASINOS!
HYPOCRICY IN ACTION IS ALIVE AND WELL IN TOPEKA.
February 26, 2010 at 5:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
IRISH,
relax, Emporia's smoking ban will not be overruled by this state law. And there are no class B clubs in Lyon County that could change. The way I read the bill the VFW , Legion, or Eagles club, (are they still open?) could allow smoking if they want.
It's a great day to celebrate!
Someone remind henryVIII to buy early cause he still can't buy his booze on sunday. HAH HAH!
Oh and by the way, I think the legislature is voting today to DOUBLE the tax on booze.
February 26, 2010 at 5:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Steve.....
Apparently the ony way to truly have equal rights in Kansas.....is to be Kansas. I wonder if we could declare ourselves states. You could be the State of Steve....I could be the State of Biscuit......and then we could violate anybody's else rights that were in our space......because we would have all the rights in our space.
February 26, 2010 at 6:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I don't know biscuit, my state would be the state of confusion.
February 26, 2010 at 6:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I am incorrect in my above post.
The VFW, Legion and Eagles club could NOT allow smoking in Emporia. A city ban can be stricter than the state ban, but cannot be more lax.
And they are really going to double the tax on booze.
February 26, 2010 at 6:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
When I was a child attending Sunday School at my mother's insistence, I failed to understand that the wages of sin were really paid to the tax collector.
February 26, 2010 at 7:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
do you mean the sin of boozing?
or the sin of Buying Booze on Sunday?
February 26, 2010 at 7:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
les_herschler, you stated, " I gotta tell you, it's nice to walk into the bars and not get lost in the fog. I'm not asking for a beating, folks. It's just an observation. "
However, , when you walk into a bar or anywhere, now... you and others apparantely are indifferent to the fact that there are those citizens, in those bars and other places, who have " LOST " certain " RIGHTS and FREEDOMS ", which to me is much worse than " getting lost in the fog " .
I will take being able to choose whether or not to get lost in the fog, over losing any of my " RIGHTS OR FREEDOMS " any day, especially if my or anyone' s loss of a " Right or Freedom " comes about forcibly by the actions and propoganda of bigotry and hypocrisy .
Which of our other " RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS " will be next on the lost list ? Each, individual citizens, freedom or right that is forcibly taken away by someone, anyone by any means, is just one more step toward ' TYRANNY " .
February 26, 2010 at 8:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Whatever the state deems it to be Steve. For once deemed a sin. the state then can raise taxes on it at will without fear of voter retaliation.
February 26, 2010 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
les_herschler (anonymous) says...
Methusa, don't waste your time presenting your "freedom" argument on me. I've read them in the past. They don't hold water.
March 7, 2010 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
les_herschler, I smoke cigars but when I am around my friends who are bothered by the smoke, I put my cigar out. It isn't because the law says I have to but out of common courtesy. The law says that I cannot light a cigar inside a bar even if everyone inside the bar smokes. It is for that reason that I do not go to bars inside Emporia. When the state of Kansas goes no smoking, I will not go to any bar inside Kansas. I quit paying my annual membership fees to the American Legion Post #5 when that crazy lady started her tirade on smoking well before Emporia's ban. I'm not the only one who chose not to frequent that place and the post has lost membership due to intolerant a holes. Since the Emporia banishment, thousands of people have chose not to spend money inside Emporia as well. It is because of intolerant people who feel their rights outweigh freedom of others. The loss of revenue that will come to the State of Kansas will cause even more programs to be cut. I will not purchase tobacco inside the state of Kansas. I choose to drive over the state lines and give the state of Missouri my tobacco tax money. I hope your rights and freedoms are effected as a result of your intolerance too.
March 7, 2010 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
koalemos
My guess is that when les does someday suffer some loss of his rights's and freedoms because of somebody else's intolerance he will adopt a totally different attitude. Oh that I live long enough to see that day!
March 7, 2010 at 12:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
Trust me biscuitboy, He will. Laws are imposed for the safety of society. It is important that laws not be imposed upon everyone for the comfort of a few. When that happens people loose respect for all laws. Eventually people like les will become a victim of someone who views the law as being stupid and nobody will care enough to stop what they are doing to help.
People who smoke are more incline to take a risk than people who don't smoke. The smokers have been forced to stay away from public places except for the essentials. Having fewer risk takers in public places makes it less likely that anyone would take the risk of assisting a victim so while a thief is stealing someones stuff the people remaining in public places tend to look the other way so not to risk injury or harm to themselves. Look at it like this, If someone is scared of second hand smoke hurting them imagine how scared they would be when confronted with a violent criminal.
March 7, 2010 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
les_herschler (anonymous) says...
Biscuitboy et. al: You see rights as absolute. They aren't, and never have been. If they were, we'd have no need for laws.
For that matter, at least in Emporia, the public got to choose, and it voted for the ban. Seems to me that the right to make such a choice IS what freedom is about.
March 8, 2010 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Anyone, and I do mean anyone who would profess that " An individuals Rights are not absolute. " , apparantely has not heard of nor recongnizes an individuals/mans " God given rights " nor the rights of the citizens of the United States, as set forth by the " Bill of Rights " and the Constitution of the United States, and which are upheld, in most cases, by the Supreme Court. Futhermore, yes the smoking ban was enacted, by what I perceive as somewhat dubious means, by those anti-smoking, people controlling, nuts who actively recuited, non-permanent, non-property tax paying, students to vote in favor of a smoking ban .
If you think for one minute that an individuals rights are not absolute, just try to take away the " Rights " that were gained by the " Civil Rights " movement .
The only ones, who believe and say that an individuals rights or freedoms are not absolute and are intent on forceably, by any means possible, even to the point of vote and voter manipulation to attain their right to control the rights and freedoms of others are the only ones who believe in the sanctity of their rights and freedoms and only their rights and freedoms. But when it comes to them losing or threat of losing any of their percieved rights and freedoms, they will be the first and loudest to protest the loss of their rights and freedoms.
This is the most grandiose form of HIPROCY and BIGOTRY and are a very real danger to everyone, much more so than smoking or SHS will ever be .
March 8, 2010 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
And before Mr.les_herschler or anyone else decides to go off on a patented rant, I will again make it perfectly clear, I DO NOT SMOKE, but I do respect each persons rights and freedoms and will never forcebly try to make anyone do, believe, think , live as I dictate them to do or live as I do or have done. However, I will not, ever respect the idea that someone, anyone has the right to forceably, take away, interfere with another persons rights or freedoms .
March 8, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
Has anyone noticed excessive bird droppings on their cars lately? Since the banishment of smoking inside bars, I have been forced to come up with something new to do with the time that I used to spend inside bars smoking and spending money. One of the things I enjoy doing these days is placing wild bird feed in and around the parking lots at the hospital, health clinic and college. I really hope that the bird droppings are as offensive as my second hand smoke. Have fun cleaning the white stuff off your cars everyone. By the way, there is no laws against feeding the wild birds……Yet.
March 8, 2010 at 1:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
koalemos,
So you're the one... I could say something about being considerate to others and doing that kind of thing elsewhere, but I'm sure you have a perfectly good reason for practicing your bird feeding habit where it negatively affects others... right?
While I do find bird droppings on my car to be an unsightly nuisance, I have no reason to believe it is harmful to my health. In large quantities, I'm sure there could be some health consequences. This is why a business would likely not be allowed to have 2 feet of bird droppings on their floor. Large quantities of such things in enclosed spaces is bad news. This goes for SHS and I would guess bird bombs as well, but I haven't seen studies on the latter.
'enry
March 8, 2010 at 2:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
HenryVIII, I said something that wasn’t. I don’t really put bird feed in the parking lots of the advocates of the smoking ban. I do put feed out in my own yard. Not because I like songbirds but because I enjoy watching the blue jays as they attack and kill the smaller birds. Not really….Just joking….Only Kidding…LOL
March 8, 2010 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
les_herschler
Theoretically I must agree with methusla.....rights by definition should be absolute....anything less would not be a right but more along the line of a privilege.
In the cold cruel real world however you are absolutely correct.....rights are only as absolute as the people granting them allow them to be. And a quick look through history proves that rights are often more elusive than absolute.
That has worked to the advantage of the non-smoking advocates at this place and time. But in this world of non-absolute rights one must never be complacent enough to belief that a right gained will be a right kept. This being the case one can never count on any thing staying the same for long. So those people that you have deprived of their rights today may well be the ones looking at your rights tomorrow.
And I have already stated here more than once.....I can not see myself working at all to protect the rights of say "enry or yourself should the boogeyman come looking at your house. Then paybacks become hell....as the rights you have taken today may someday be taken from you.
That's what I call starting down the slippery slope and that first step has already been taken.
March 8, 2010 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
If someone were to enter the hospital and light up a big fat cigar to express a disagreement with the local ordinance a process of appeals would eventually make it to the Supreme Court for a decision. The Supreme Court has upheld the right to burn the American flag so I truly believe that smoking bans cannot survive because laws that prevent an American Citizen from protesting unreasonable government intrusion violates the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
March 8, 2010 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
les_herschler (anonymous) says...
Free speech in the ideal is an absolute right. However, in reality, it is not...trying yelling fire in a crowded theater, or standing smack in the middle of 6th and Commercial to tout your political beliefs. While you may have the right to say it, location is another story.
March 8, 2010 at 8:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
We will never know if smoking is protected as a freedom of speech and expression until someone is charged for violating the smoking ban and take it through the appeals process. Since people who smoke also obey the law, chances are that nobody will be charged for violating the ban so we will never know how the court will rule.
I know one thing for sure. I will never be charged for violation of the smoking ban. But then again, I don't go to restaurants or bars anymore either. Saves me lots of money. I sure hope the smoking ban proponents make up the difference in the lost revenue from the law.
March 8, 2010 at 9:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Yelling " Fire " in a crowded theater, for no reason is not a guaranteed right or a freedom, just as standing in the middle of 6th ave and Commercial to tout your political beliefs is also not a guaranteed right or freedom. Not doing either of these is just plain old fashioned common sense and respect for others. And location is a whole other thing, than a persons individual rights or freedoms.
March 8, 2010 at 10:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Tyranny is also not a guaranteed right or freedom and yet in my view, when an individuals right or freedom is taken away or restricted by any other individual, or group, whether it be, by trying to get the government to help them do so or by manipulating a public vote or voters is, but, one more step toward rule by Tyranny .
March 8, 2010 at 10:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
In my humble opinion, there are no absolute rights in this world. Not even dying for even there we can't control the time or place of the event. What we have instead is privileges granted in an unequal manner to select groups of so-called "deserving" individuals and withheld with equal selectivity from other "less-deserving" people. Who is granted and who is denied to a large extend is dictated by who, at any given moment, has the favor of the puppet masters.
Therefore all so called "rights" are always open to challenge and change by another group that has the ear of the powers that be. Our best protection against this was the theoretical concept of all men being born equal....with rights (think privileges) being granted to all equally. In reality that was never true...ask blacks and women in our young democracy. Though we have in theory opened up the application of privileges since that time to all groups of peoples...we have pretty consistently also narrowed their application in many ways such as smoking bans and morality based laws of so-called victimless crimes.
So rights in this country....as well as all other countries..... is nothing but a glorious sounding little bit of propaganda that is only applied rigorously to who ever is in power at the time. We should instead be bragging about our wonderful privileges that are granted to some. Of course that doesn't make nearly as nice a sounding song for country singers to sing with great reverence.
March 9, 2010 at 6:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
Before I enlisted in the military I truly believed that America was a free place and everywhere else was a dictatorship without freedom. I know for a fact that America is the most dictatorial nation on the planet. I had more freedom under Manual Noriega than I ever had under Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush or Obama combined. Americans are scared of loosing freedom but they don't realize that they never had it in the first place.
Go to a public waterway and cast a line into the water. If you haven't payed for permission you could get arrested, fined or both.
Go buy a car and drive it without paying for a permit and you can be arrested, fined and have your car taken from you.
Make something and go out in public to sell it without paying for permission and you may be fined, arrested and have your product taken from you.
Heck, in America you can't even send your children to the store to buy beer and cigarettes for you without chancing a fine or imprisonment or both.
America is not a free nation. We are a pay to play nation filled with people who couldn't make it anywhere else because in every other country on this planet the strong survive and the weak try to make it to America so they can impose their fear upon the rest of us.
I own my property but I have to pay someone for permission to make improvements and after my hard work is completed I have to pay more money in property tax or loose it to the highest bidder. I can't wait till Armageddon kills off the weak and frees up this great nation once again.
March 9, 2010 at 6:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
les_herschler (anonymous) says...
By God, Methusla, I think you're getting it.
March 9, 2010 at 6:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
I propose a new law requiring anyone who wants to cast a vote to present their DD Form 214 showing that they were honorably discharged after upholding and defending our constitution. Without a DD 214 you cannot vote. That would stop all of the BS that holds our nation hostage to the weak and fearful scumbags.
March 9, 2010 at 6:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Well, les_herschler, I always understood that an individuals rights, freedoms, right to choose or privilages or the way an individual had the right and freedom to live his/her life, have their own thoughts, run their own business without undue restriction, within existing laws, which were fair and resonable to everyone.
However Sir, what you do not seem to " GET " is the plain fact that when you or anyone else, as an individual or group of individuals try and " COERCE " individuals and government to change already fair and unbiased law to a law that is absolutely biased, unfair, oppressive and restrictive to anyones life style, way of living , way of thinking, way of running their own business, etc., etc., is absolutely the " Tyrants " way of forcing people who do not believe, think , live as " YOU " believe everyone should live. Therfore, that sir, makes you and everyone else who thinks as you do a " Tyrant ", not a " Hero or Savior ", as you and others would like the people to believe.
And just in case corece is an unfamiliar word to you, the meaning of the word follow.
Main Entry: co·erce
Pronunciation: \kō-ˈərs\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): co·erced; co·erc·ing
Etymology: Middle English cohercen, from Anglo-French *cohercer Latin coercēre, from co- + arcēre to shut up, enclose — more at ark
Date: 15th century
1 : to restrain or dominate by force
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to achieve by force or threat
synonyms see force
March 9, 2010 at 8:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
koalemos
I also believe that in order to vote one should also be required to provide proof of property ownership and proof that you have paid locally owned real estate property taxes before being allowed to vote in any local, civic or county election, no matter what the proposal to be voted on. After all why should those who do not personally pay real estate property taxes, to local City or County be allowed to vote on something that will have a profound effect on local property taxpayers.
I also believe that every Tom, Dick and Harry who happens to not be a permanent local resident should not be allowed to vote on local, civic or county matters or questions.
March 9, 2010 at 8:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
This will be koalemos’ final comment on these forums. I would like to thanks the staff of the Emporia Gazette for allowing freedom of expression and the forum to state an opinion.
With 1 out of every 32 Americans in prison, Jail or on Parole it won’t take too much time before you are effected by intolerance. Your children are more likely to go prison than to go to college. At the rate we are going, your grandchildren will be more likely to be charged as an adult for a victimless crime than completing High School. Keep up the good work people.
So long!
March 9, 2010 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Wichitawings (anonymous) says...
It doesn't make any difference, the State of Kansas due to the deficit is going to raise taxes on Tobacco, Liquor, and Sales. So people will quit smoking and that revenue will go away, they will stop going to bars because the cost of beer after the tax increase will kill that business also as well as the sales tax increase, no one will be able to afford food. So what all of you are saying is true, except our legislators don't get the full picture and that is balance the budget and live within your means. We used to send 20 mils of our property tax to the state and get that money back for students, now we send them the same but they are taking some of it to fill the voids of their irresponsible spending and our school districts are suffering. Write your politicians and get their head screwed on straight, or change it at election time.
March 9, 2010 at 1:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
les_herschler (anonymous) says...
Coerced? Who coerced? A group asked for a ban, the city OK'd it, allowing the public to ask for and receive the opportunity to vote on it. The public approved the ban. How is that coercion?
Just because you don't agree with it does not make it coercion or its supporters tyrants. IT does prove that the people got their say -- exactly as our government is supposed to work.
For what it is worth, I think if the whole county wanted to vote on the ban, than it should have been proposed as a county-wide ban.
March 9, 2010 at 1:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eucharistandcannabis (anonymous) says...
Uncle. Uncle. Uncle.
Give it up already.
March 9, 2010 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
les_herschler (anonymous) says...
Methusla, Are you saying the election officials allowed improper or illegal votes?
March 10, 2010 at 7:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
myapologiesforlivin (anonymous) says...
Very interesting insights everyone. I still believe the bottom line is the hypocrisy of this law. Smoking is legal and yet smokers are treated as pariahs, ...hmmm, seems we are skewed in our thinking. I remember the old saw: "May I go swimming mother dear? Oh yes, my darling daughter. Hang your clothes on the hickory limb, but don't go near the water."
I have a strong personal dislike for smoking and drinking but am friends with many folks who smoke and drink.
I am for:
*acting responsibly
*moderation
*courtesy
*living UP to personal convictions
We do not need our lives micromanaged by laws and lawmakers do we?
March 10, 2010 at 9:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
les_herschler (anonymous) says...
Yes, smoking is legal AND regulated....even before the ban.
March 10, 2010 at 10:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Well, Mr. Hershler, when voters are actively recuited to vote on a local issue, which will profoundly affect the local tax structure and tax revenues collected, who are neither permanent local residents nor own real estate, for which which they pay taxes. But, yet are allowed to vote on local issues, that will absolutely affect the local, permanent taxpaying residents ! What exactly would you call such a vote ?
I think if you read and understand my comments on the subject I believe you will know exactly what I call such a vote and I as much called such a vote/voter tactic, excatly what it is, in several of my past comments.
March 11, 2010 at 3:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
les_herschler (anonymous) says...
I would call it a legal vote, Methusla. IF you don't like the rules about who can vote, then work to change them. Political activists are always recruiting voters. It's called campaigning.
March 11, 2010 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
So, it is fine with you to let someone vote, who has no interest in, whether their vote will take money out of the pockets of pernament tax paying local residents, though they could care less about what hardship it may cause the local permanent residents, because they, as a temporary, non-real-property owning, non property tax paying, residents will not be around long enough to see or experience what their vote may do or cause ?
Discussing such a point with people such as you is a useless and mute endeavor, so this is my last comment on this particular subject .
March 11, 2010 at 4:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
les_herschler (anonymous) says...
Methusla, don't say it is your last comment, because it is not. How many times in the past have you vowed no more comments only to make another?
2. if they weren't interested in someway, they wouldn't have voted.
3. It appears you are determined to take away the rights of some to vote simply because they didn't vote your way. Or do you have some proof of voter fraud, IT seems to me the only people who voted in this election are those who were entitled by law to vote.
March 11, 2010 at 6:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
les_herschler,
I think meth poses a point worth considering. He didn't advocate taking away the right of a person to vote because they didn't agree with him. He just questioned whether a temporary resident, ( ie; a college student) of a voting district should be able to vote in and affect the future of a voting district that they won't be living in or paying taxes in the future.
EXAMPLE: Every student at ESU votes on a proposistion to exempt themselves from paying any local sales taxes in Emporia.
OR; The majority of Emporia residents, (even temporary ones), vote to designate Chinese or Spanish , or Swahili as the official language of The city of Emporia.
Should that be allowed to happen?
March 11, 2010 at 9:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
les_herschler (anonymous) says...
Steve: I understand what he is saying. However, you are going to have to define temporary resident. Just because a voter is a college student does not necessarily mean they are temporary. Are we going to deny them the right to vote just because they may or may not be here in four years?
For that matter, don't blame those who voted for the passing of the ban, but those who didn't vote. At least those college students, however they voted, cared enough to vote. To bad most of the "permanent" residents did not go to the polls.
March 11, 2010 at 9:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
If you are going to disallow college students the vote because they might not be here in four years, then maybe you should require a four year residency be established before allowing anyone to vote.
If you require a person to be a property tax payer....a four year resident.....an honorably discharged veteran.....or a white male to vote, then only permanent resident white male veterans should have to pay taxes. Anybody else would be taxation without representation....and it seems like we fought a war over that issue.
myapologies....well said.
March 12, 2010 at 5:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Steve, thanks for making the point which I was trying so hard to make, but such a point is impossible to make to someone who does not understand how a manipulated vote can do great harm, just as oppressing votes and voters may do great harm.
However, for a " Democracy, Democratic republic, which ever you wish to call it, to function the way it is supposed to function with fairness and equity for all, there must be strict guidelines for allowing votes and voters, that should and must be followed. Such as, in order for someone to vote in a national election, i.e., voting for President, Congressman/woman, a voter should be a viable, permanent, residing, taxpaying citizen and registered voter of said country and be required to produce varifiable proof of such, before being allowed to vote on national issues or candidates for national office. Also for a person to be able to vote in any State, County, City, Town, Township or village, that person should be a viable, permanent, residing, taxpaying citizen of said State, County, City, Town, Township or village, and have varifiable proof of such before being allowed to vote on any issues that may have detrimental affects on the permanenet, taxpaying citizens of the Country, State, County, City, Town, Township or village .
This is the only way that a Government that claims to be a Government of all the people will truely be a Government of all the people and not be a Government of a few manipulating, powerful people .
When a few people are allowed to manipulate votes and voters in order to influence a vote outcome, thereby effectively controlling Government, it can no longer be called a Government of all the people, but an Oligarchy form of Government.
March 12, 2010 at 6:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy, you already have taxation without proper representation, as you as a citizen and a taxpayer, really have no say on taxes or government spending !
March 12, 2010 at 6:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Whoa, whoa,
Every U.S. citizen has not only the right but a duty to cast an informed vote in all elections.
I used to think it should be a federal law requiring residents to cast votes in elections. Then I rethought that idea after hearing some voters comments on the last general election. And the comments were not just opposite of my views, some people didn't know who was running, or who the running mates were or a politicians voting record.
i agree with les about our permanent residents not going to the polls.
sometimes it's those who complain the loudest are those who don't cast informed votes.
March 12, 2010 at 6:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I agree every varifiable, permanent, taxpaying voter has the right to cast an informed vote. However, when you say that a temporary, non-taxpaying voter can and may cast a vote in a local issue and then deny all permanent, taxpaying county citizens to vote in a local City election issue, and remember these county citizens and voters spend, probably more of there money in the City than do the temporary non-taxpaying citizens, which is worse. Letting or demanding the temporary, non-taxpaying person vote on a local issue or denying or demanding the permanent, taxpaying, voter, who supports the City with their substantial monetary contributions, not be allowed to vote on local city issues, that by the way will also affect them personally ?
March 12, 2010 at 7:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
les_herschler (anonymous) says...
Welcome back, Meth. We knew you wouldn't be gone long.
Steve is right, every eligible voter has not only the right but also the duty to vote. However, an informed vote is far more preferable than one cast just for the sake of voting.
Now, it seems to me that the voting process does require verification of identity,
Who are the non-permanent residents? How do you determine that they are non-permanent?
What 18-year-old or older person doesn't pay taxes in one form or another -- sales, property, etc.?
Define the term manipulated voter? DFor that matter, who was done to manipulate these voters? Asking to vote against the ban? Isn't that called campaigning? And even if they are not "permanent" residents of Emporia, they are residents at the time of the election. Isn't that enough to make them eligible to vote? The ban does impact them? No only do they resident within the city limits of Emporia, but they also spend money here and contribute to the economy here.
And finally, how many of these manipulated voters actually went to the polls? Not many, I'd bet.
The reality is, the voters who cared about the issue went to the polls and voted. The rest did not. We now live we the outcome.
March 12, 2010 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
If the county residents who are permanent residents, whos' familys have lived in the County and Emporia area for decades and spend their money supporting, not only the City of Emporia and the County by paying property taxes and City and County sales taxes were not allowed to vote on an issue that will also profoundly impact them were not allowed to vote on the issue that affects everyone who supports the City of Emporia with their monetary contributions, that is what I see as a profound and blatant manipulation of the vote and voters by those who supported the smoking ban or any issue that should concern all who support Emporia and the County with their hard earned and ever shrinking income/money .
Especially, when some of these permanent, taxpaying county citizens, own and operate businesses within the City of Emporia and yet still were not allowed to vote on the issue, even though it would affect them more profoundly than most. Blatant vote/voter manipulation, I certainly believe so, but this is just my crazy, uneducated, stupid opinion, according to some.
Just the opinion of a non progressive, crotchity, uneducated, non logical, old geezer, who only cares about the being fair and equitable to all of his fellow citizens and not just a few of the citizens.
March 12, 2010 at 1:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )