Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on April 23, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

More discussion on pushing for a smoking ban in Emporia.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

American Legion, Country Club, Olpe Chicken house I think as well. I'm from the country, I don't go to town to eat steak, I take one out of the freezer and fire up the grill. I do believe all three serve drinks if that's what you mean by adult meal.

Montana Mikes allows smoking back by the bar, you have to walk thru there to use the restroom, not a wise choice on their design.

Posted by Penny (anonymous) on April 26, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Applebees, Village inn, Montana Mikes and the legion all have smoking. Carlos used to but haven't been there for so long I really don't know, not a place I'd go for a steak anyway. Don't know about the Country Club, don't belong to it. By adult meals I mean places that don't serve meals in paper bags, that have real forks and don't have plastic toys or playgrounds. I don't particularly care about the bar part although many places have them. I also grill often, but occasionally Mama likes to have a meal she doesn't prepare and doesn't have to clean up afterwards!

Posted by BillHannegan (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Clean Air Emporia website contains a hugely misleading claim that needs to be clarified. Twice the website makes this claim:

"During an 8 hour work shift in a smoky bar, an employee can inhale secondhand smoke equivalent of smoking 16 cigarettes (4short of a pack)."
http://www.emporiansfordrugawareness.com...
http://www.emporiansfordrugawareness.com...

16 cigarettes is a trick number. Clean Air Emporia is merely saying that the chemical NDMA (N-nitroso-dimethylamine) is more present in secondhand smoke than in actively inhaled smoke. It takes 16 cigarettes actively smoked to equal the NDMA exposure a bartender receives after eight hours at work in a smoky bar. Does this mean that a nonsmoker becomes almost a-pack-a-day passive smoker by taking a job in a smoky bar? Hardly. The actual smoke a bartender breathes in the smokiest bar as measured by total tobacco-specific particles inhaled equals about one-fifth of a cigarette per eight-hour shift, or one cigarette per 40-hour week.

http://www.ehponline.org/members/1999/Su...

Of course, affordable air filtration machines can reduce these fractional smoke exposures to near zero.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Scripta: I have only one measly degree, in English, but I learned how to compose a proper sentence and that "persue" is actually spelled "pursue" and "smokey" is spelled "smoky". Good luck with that 3rd degree.

Posted by rustbuster (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 2:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Were does society begin and were does it stop? China has already banned more than one child in a family. In the Movie Demolition Man, if you use bad language you are fined, you can't use toilet paper to wipe, you can't have sex, heck your not even alowed to kiss because they call it exchange of bodily fluid. Is society starting to come to this point? As far as second hand smoke. It is scientificly proven that diabetes, cancer, and other diseases are already in our DNA. For what ever reason something has to trigger that part of our DNA for it to start. Look at George Burns, he smoked huge cigars for years and lived to be 99. He didn't die of lung cancer. We are starting to lose our rights given to us. Why don't they close down all fast food because it might lead to obesity, high blood pressure or even heart failure. Why not outlaw the use of sugar because it leads to tooth decay and weight gain. Here is a thought, "How about banning food stamps and welfare," and actually make people go out a get a job instead of laying on the couch all day and watching t.v. Heck why not get rid of couches and t.v's because they cause us to be less active, which in return can lead to obesity and poor health. This is what I mean about, "were does society begin and end."

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

scripta-- You said that you didn't want one red cent of your medicaire or taxes to go to health care for smoking related illness or treatment of them. Treatment for illness, especially ones derived from a legal choice seems to be fairly reasonable considering some of the things that your taxes and medicaire are paying for. Like treatment of sick people who aren't supposed to be in this country in the first place. Think of all of the money the government is making on tyranical tobacco taxes. When all smokers quit (or are banned), to please you and your kind, it will be everybody that has to pick up the financial slack. And you'll still be paying for my iron lung.

Posted by truelovecharlie (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Exactly!!! Any time they need more tax revenues, they hit the cigarettes. Imagine what would happen to tax revenues if all smokers refrained for just 1 week. I am so sick of being told you have to wear a seat belt in the car, you can't do this, you can't do that, you can't say this or that as it offends. Everyone seems to want to be hteir own island. As for helping to pay medical expenses for smoking related illnesses; what about helping to pay for all the babies born into welfare, should we now pass a law that if you are on welfare or disability you have be sterilized? How about, if there are only 2 people in your household, we pass a law that you can buy only a super sub-compact vehicle due to the fuel crisis? We continue to sit back and let all our freedoms be stripped away from us.

Posted by Penny (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The analogies fall short. This ordinance is not taking away anyone's freedom to smoke. It in no way attempts to say you shouldn't smoke. What it asks is to level the playing field for those who choose not to smoke. Banning fast food in an attempt to curb obesity is a ridulous comparison, no one dies from second hand grease. Again, not talking about banning smoking, just regulating who is exposed to said smoke. Why is the smoker's "right" to smoke in public outweighed by my right not to breathe smoke? And shame on any of you who are taking personal "pot shots" at Mrs. Walters. You should be so brave as to stand up in public and voice your opinions.

Posted by Merry_Carol (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Monkee, perhaps I worded my post badly. I didn't mean the neighbor's smoke was filling my house. LOL Not visibly, but when she would smoke on her front porch, especially in quiet weather, we could smell it in our living room, some days more than others. This hampered our comfort in our own home, and forced us to keep our windows closed some parts of some days. Not a big issue, because it wasn't all the time. But one of those things that happens.

Our house isn't real tight, so we are slowly replacing windows. As that happens, it will be easier to keep unwanted smells out. But even at that, when someone smokes on the porch of that house in some weathers, we have to keep the windows in the living room shut.

As for the hysteria that people think all our freedoms are going to disappear because smokers must be forced by a law to be polite about where they smoke, that is just hysteria. Look around the country. These laws have been enacted, fairly successfully. Time Emporia and the rest of Kansas catches up.

I'm not going to sit here and carry on about the many ills of smoking. There are a lot of ways we humans hurt ourselves. But laws to protect people from other people's smoke seem inevitable and reasonable since smokers insist that they have a right somehow to make the rest of us breathe their smoke.

If it makes anyone feel any better, I gripe about the prairie fires. I realize they must be necessary, but they ruin a lot of Spring for my family.

I also gripe about the exhaust from the cattle trucks that go by.

There are so many ways our air is polluted. Cigarette smoke is just one. I simply think it'd be nice to be able to go out and enjoy ourselves in a smoke free environment.

Most malls are smoke free now, and so much more pleasant than they used to be. Why can't restaurants be smoke free too? I don't like to smoke with my food.

So, smoke all you want. I have absolutely no problem with your right to smoke. I just have a problem with it being in my face, my husband and especially my children's faces too.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Merry_Carrol---

Its not just hysteria. Its called a slippery slope. Once you decide that it is okay for an authority to take something away from the citizens, it becomes easier and easier for that authority (or any other authority) to take away something else and something else, etc. People become used to losing rights and freedoms without a fight because they start to assume, or are told, it is for their benefit. If you give goverment that kind of leverage, the bans will NEVER end. The fact that folks think something smells bad and may or may not be unhealthy is hardly the point. The point is to stop these bans before they become so commonplace that the banners don't even have to ask permission of the citizens anymore. As a smoker, I don't smoke in public places (except a bar). Not because I think it stinks, but because I try to be polite and I can go the duration of a meal or appointment without a cigarette. However, its very American to still have the option to do so.

Posted by scripta (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Touché ( I think I spelled that correctly).

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Merry_Carol: Now I am really worried. You don't like the smell of cigarette smoke. You don't like the smell of range fire smoke. You don't like the odor of cattle trucks. I am doomed if you crusade against Mexican food and the excessive flatulence it produces. It ain't pleasant, but it's legal and it's my right.

Posted by Penny (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bj, you're such a drama queen LOL

I think the point that was attempting to be made is that there are lots of unpleasant odors in society but this ordinance is not about odor. It's about health. Your flatulence, no matter how noxious, does not pose a threat to anyone else's health.

Posted by Merry_Carol (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL, BJ, no worry, I'm not campaigning against anything, just expressing an opinion. Moving cattle with big trucks is necessary. Range burning is evidently necessary. Hey, it's always something! ;) And there are certainly bigger problems in this world than where you get to smoke.

Outsider, I understand the slippery slope concept, but we could say that about many laws.

I frankly think it is a shame that we have to even consider a law like this. If people who smoked were all as polite as you are, then there wouldn't be a problem. But they aren't. There are enough smokers who don't give a second thought to other people that finally non-smokers and even smokers who don't want to be in smoke in restaurants are rebelling against it.

I really think it is that simple. If people could just be considerate about their smoke.........

I am in favor of nonsmoking laws to a degree. I've seen them work. But I already have it worked out for my own life where I eat and where I socialize. So, it's not a big problem for me most of the time. I simply don't have the freedom to go to certain restaurants or any bars if I don't want to breathe cigarette smoke. No big deal to me personally.

Posted by MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The rest of us have a right to breathe clean air."

Says who?

Do you really think banning smoking will allow you to breath clean air?

Pshaw.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Penny: Drama king, not "drama queen". I'm happy, not gay. :)

Posted by Penny (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, thanks for clearing that up, bj! I didn't even consider that, it's just a phrase. I'm glad you're happy.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Penny: I know. I was just pulling your chain a bit. I can tell you have a good sense of humor.

Posted by builderboy (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would love to see emproria enact a smoking ban. I grew up in a household full of smokers and had no choice in the matter. I feel sad for all the children I see in public business that allow smoking.

People are complaining that their rights are being taken away. Laws are designed to protect us not harm us. Perhaps those people should go visit a third world country if they don't like laws.

I'm glad to see someone step up and take the public criticism Go Teresa !!!!! What can I do to help the movement ??

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

builderboy: Those complaining about new laws and bans don't need to "visit a third world country". Why? Laws and bans restricting personal rights are common practice in Fascist regimes and dictatorships. This group is attempting to do that here. Why go elsewhere to experience it?

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 11:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am a nonsmoker. I do not like being directly exposed to it. However, when I go into an establishment that allows it, or someone's home who smokes, I have done so with full knowledge of what to expect. Bjnemp is absolutely correct in his assertions that we are becoming more and more like third world dictatorships. Once a position on an issue is blessed by the politically correct crowd, there is an avalanche to make a law to enforce that position. What happened to our historically accepted notion to live and let live? If you don't want to be around the smoke, do like me and go somewhere else. This is, after all, America.

Posted by BillHannegan (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 1:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Rather than a smoking ban, why not just clear the smoke with affordable, available technology?

http://www.air-quality-eng.com/
http://www.smokeeaters.org/
http://www.industrial-maid.com/commercia...
http://aircleaningequipment.com/items.ph...
http://www.nosmokeking.com/home2.html
http://www.jdstools.com/index.asp?PageAc...
http://www.fivehawk.com/technology.htm
http://www.casinoair.com/site/1272069/pa...
http://www.airistar.com/src/CEM_12_05.pd...

Posted by booker5m (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For those who keep calling the system we live in a democracy,hate to break your bubble but we live in a Republic. I take its your right to drive as fast as you like. We have laws because the human being is not able to make right choices.I for one will support a smoking ban!

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What does the difference between a democracy and a republic have to do with this? One (democracy) is direct governance, while the other (republic) is indirect governance through elected representatives. Either way, the will of the governed ultimately decides. The English common law recognized two theories that justified enactment of law: malum in se (prohibiting something because it is inherently wrong or evil, such as Murder, generally based upon Judeo-Christian traditions and teachings) and malum prohibitum (prohibiting something that is not inherently bad or evil, but useful in providing for an orderly society, modern examples being laws requiring drivers' licenses and imposing speed limits). A smoking ban takes this to another level - prohibiting something just because it is politically incorrect. I know that some will argue that it protects those who don't smoke (like me) from those who do, but that argument fails in practice for two reasons: first, you don't have to go where smoking is allowed, and secondly, virtually all establishments provide for both smokers and nonsmokers. This proposal is political correctness run amuck. We are regulated enough under the two existing legal theories; we don't need a third.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Booker5: I'm confused. If "we have laws because the human being is not able to make right choices", who is making the laws? Martians? And, yes, our nation is structured as a Republic but is governed as a democracy. This smoking ban committee and their do-gooder supporters reminds me of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker! I am impressed. That was perhaps the most literate, and accurate, posting I have yet seen in this format. I am in awe of your degree of knowledge and ability to communicate.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you, Bjnemp. I have received responses to posts before, but rarely have they been compliments. I appreciate it.

Posted by yankee (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MrCmonkeedo: "Most smokers do not die from lung cancer."

NO most die from empyhsema or COPD (aka Chronic obstuctive lung disaease). The forementioned are secondary to smoking as well as second hand smoke, and exposure to many other chemicals, pollution, asbestos, etc......

Posted by agoldengirl (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Teresa you look so happy on the front page photo for your mission to make us all smoke free. Why is this so important to you and why did you choose this as your crusade rather then abused children, education, loss of employment, the economy of parents looking to how to support their families, or obesity? I think I read that you would like to run for the city commissioner, but if this is the best cause you can come up with don't expect me to vote for you, as all of the above are more important to me than your "clean air campaign" that only the fortunate people as yourself do not live on a day to day basis .Health has always been an issue for myself, but health insurance and prescriptions are the real concern. Your 5 seconds of fame does not change anything for anyone who shares your goals. I am of the work force over the age of 60 that do not need you to be the voice of how to better our lives,nor our children. I seriously recommend that you move to another city that appreciates your gracious comments of all the smokers that have a need for you to "clean their air" rather than providing for their children I challenge you to ask any smoker if they would purchase tabbaco before food for their children. You run your household as you see fit, but do not try to run mine by assuming you are the only right person in Emporia. I think you went over the line. Have a good day. Regards.

Posted by been_there (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I, as a smoker, do see both sides to this discussion. I personally also try to be respectful of others and don't smoke in public places. I have to go outside at work, rain or shine, and I choose to go outside at my home. I don't like the smell that smoke leaves behind and can't stand to eat while others around me are smoking. That being said, I agree that this should be the business owners decision in most cases. I have no problem with all restaurants being non-smoking, I'm sure we can all take it outside or survive one hour without a cigarette while we enjoy a meal. I do, however, enjoy smoking when I go to a bar, be it only 2 to 3 times a year. I think most people know what they are getting into when they walk into a bar. You run the risk of getting a drink spilled on you, hearing a few choice words that aren't in your vocabulary, watching a public display of affection that would be better played out in privacy or possibly walking into a brawl that you never saw coming. My point is, it was your choice to be a patron in this establishment. I don't like Chinese food so I don't go into those restaurants. (I know, that's not a public health/safety issue, unless you get ahold of some bad sushi). Maybe a few more bar owners will make the switch and everyone will have more choices of where to spend their money. If nothing else, maybe more people will stay home and there will be a lot fewer drivers under the influence on the streets, which I do believe is a public health/safety issue. For now, I think our time and energy would be better served solving problems like providing affordable insurance for everyone, lowering the unemployment rate, seeing to it that everyone can afford a good education and for pete's sake, let's do something about those kids walking around with their jeans down to their knees.

Posted by paulkersey (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 3:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To Teresa Walters:

NUTS!

The American Commander

Posted by paulkersey (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 3:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I say instead of cigarettes, we ban saturated fats. I think that would be a little closer to home, no?

Posted by justthefacts (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Based on what I've learned about environments that smokers prefer, I think we should ban bars in general. Sounds like the language is foul, you get drinks spilled on you and you inhale cancer-causing smoke. I guess we should just go back and call them what they really are...saloons. Then we can go back to having gunfights in the streets and run cattle down Commercial Street headed to Tyson's. The cops can start riding horses to save money on gas and we can just have Judge Wheeler order a hangman's tree by the useless clock tower and just hang everyone. That way we can turn the new courthouse into a house of ...well you know.. with red dresses and all and use the proceeds to pay off the debt quicker.

Yeah, the old days were really great. Keep on Trucking Ms Walters. You have more gumption than most of these couch potatoes by a long shot.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, justthebull, that's the answer: if you don't like it, ban it for all. And having "gumption" is not the same thing as being an intolerant self-involved elitist. Two different things.

Posted by create (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What a great cartoon, justthefacts and been_there. I can see it now with gunfights in the streets and cops on horseback and cattle running down the street and people hanging from the clock tower and ladies of the night waving from windows in the courthouse while kids wearing britches down to their knees do their diddleybopping all over the place. And everyone has a cigarette dangling out of his/her mouth, even the guy hanging from the clocktower. Sorry, I don't mean to demean what you are saying, but the imagery was too rich and I wish I was a cartoonist. Thanks for the giggle.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What a slippery slope we are on when so many people jump on the politically correct bandwagon. In the name of political correctness, we don't need to stop with making smokers second class citizens, we can go all out. Lets see, there are fat people, there are ugly people, there are poor people, and, of course, there are Republicans. Lets get them all while the politically correct movement has a head of steam. When we're done, the only ones left will be us politically correct elitists. There is a new day in America, and we Emporians can be so proud of our contribution to it.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
for I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the smokers,
I remained silent;
for I was not a smoker.

Finally, they came for me,
but there was no one left to speak out.

Posted by justthefacts (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm glad at least someone got the satire. I wish folks would be more civil here and stop with the personal assaults just because of a different point of view. My grandmother always told me that individuals who resort to profanity or personal affront generally are trying to defend an undefendable position or were just plain ignorant. I'll let you decide which side of the fence you are on.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

justthefacts: Of course we knew that you were being satiric. After all this is Emporia. How long has it been since cattle were being processed at Tyson's, the courts actually punished criminals, the real estate upon which the courthouse sits was economically productive and people could smoke in town? Any vision of Emporia like that that you suggest would be, by definition, satirical.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 17, 2008 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Of course, justthefacts, another giveaway that your post was satirical was your description of a scene where you actually got service when you transacted business at the courthouse.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am pretty tired of the argument from the clean air crowd that the ban in public places is the right thing to do for employees and families. Who appointed you the judge of the right thing to do for them. How many bar employees have you asked, "What is right for you?" I bet they would tell you that they don't care if people light themselves on fire as long as they tip.

I suspect that it is not even about that either. Its so Ms. Walters and her friends can flex their condescending "look at my values" and "this is the right thing to do and if you can't see that..." mucscles.

I posted on here a long time ago that for every study that says second hand smoke is harmful; there is another that says it is not. I even posted a link. And I will say again, that until it can be 100% proven that second hand smoke causes anything unhealthy a smoking ban is out of the question. Not liking the smell is not unhealthy. If you are allergic to smoke, then you should do like the lactose intolerant do with milk, and avoid it.

http://www.smokingaloud.com/corrupt.html...
http://www.smokingaloud.com/ets.html
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art... (this one is written by a physician)
http://www.lpmco.org/phpws/index.php?mod...

I could go on and on and on and on
I am not saying that second hand smoke is harmful. I am saying that it is completely unknown. A moot argument. If you take the health risk out of the equation then what you get is a facist decision made by people hell bent on getting their way.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

how about this. any business who wants to be smoke free can be, and they risk losing the business of a smoker.
if you want your establishment to remain a smokers environment, then the opposite is the same, you might lose the business of the non-smoking people.
if you are in public and you insist on smoking, do it somewhere away from me and my kids. i for one would like them to grow up healthy, without tar stains on their clothing and without black gunk in their lungs.
if you force your second hand smoke on people, don't be surprised to find others doing something equally offensive back to you. after all, it is their right....isn't it?

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dhcc66-
What exactly is offensive about smoking in public? Is it against your religious beliefs? Does it demean your race or creed? Do you mean indoors or outdoors?
Since, like everyone else, you post anonymously how are us smokers supposed to identify you and your children? Do you plan on wearing little signs in public places? Where is your right for retaliation to something you think is offensive guaranteed? Have your children ever actually been tar stained by second hand smoke? Couldn't black gunk in there lungs be caused by deisel exhaust, camp fires, pasture burning, or any number of daily environmental hazards?
Can it be agreed that a smoker doesn't force his second hand smoke on anybody? It is physics and air circulation that do that.
Is my level of sarcasm coming thru? Cuz I'm laying it on pretty thick. I find your comment a little idealistic. The environment you want you and your kids to live in is called a vacuum. Unfortunately, there is no air at all there. At least you wouldn't have to worry about second hand smoke.

Posted by birch (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Alcohol causes cancer. http://www.cancer.org. The argument to follow would no doubt be that when one is consuming alcohol, they are not threatening the life of another. There is, however, a connection between alcohol and domestic violence, and according to the CDC, “Alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes kill someone every 31 minutes and nonfatally injure someone every two minutes.”
According to The Marin Institute, a privately funded research institute, http://www.marininstitute.org/
• Alcohol availability is closely related to violent assaults. Communities and neighborhoods that have more bars and liquor stores per capita experience more assaults.
• Alcohol use is frequently associated with violence between intimate partners. Two-thirds of victims of intimate partner violence reported that alcohol was involved in the incident.
• In one study of interpersonal violence, men had been drinking in an estimated 45 percent of cases and women had been drinking in 20 percent of cases.
• Women whose partners abused alcohol were 3.6 times more likely than other women to be assaulted by their partners.
• In 1997, 40 percent of convicted rape and sexual assault offenders said that they were drinking at the time of their crime.
• In 2002, more than 70,000 students between the ages of 18 and 24 were victims of alcohol-related sexual assault in the U.S.
• In those violent incidents recorded by the police in which alcohol was a factor, about nine percent of the offenders and nearly 14 percent of the victims were under age 21.
• Twenty-eight percent of suicides by children ages nine to 15 were attributable to alcohol.
• An estimated 480,000 children are mistreated each year by a caretaker with alcohol problems.
If we ban smoking, we should ban alcohol? My guess is that the drinkers in the anti-smoking corner won’t go for that.

Posted by billclinton (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Are these people really claiming that smoking does not negatively affect their healthy? Are they really saying that second-hand smoke does not negatively affect the health of those around them?

For those of you 'pro-smoke; pro-rights' people: You're right. This is a direct VIOLATION of our rights--our rights to breathe clean air and not taint our lungs and our children's lungs with your unhealthy life-choice.

If you want to smoke, have some decency and some respect for those around you and smoke outside--away from people who may not want to decrease their life span.

Ridiculous.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, billclinton, that is ridiculous. What you are saying is: despite considerable evidence from medical professionals that there is no conclusive proof that secondhand smoke causes harm, you feel it does, therefore it does, because YOUR perception is reality. You also feel that any place you happen to be, no smoker has a right to be, because it offends you even though you could have chosen not to be there. I'm confused. Explain to me again: whose rights are being violated?

If Emporians allow a handful of social elitist crusaders to invoke their "politically correct" will upon the masses we will be opening the door for the future ban of any behavior, situation, or activity they deem unacceptable or beneath their socially superior standards. Be wary, Emporia. Be very wary.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh outsider, you MUST be one of the proud smokers in here. never did i say we ought to live in a vaccuum....but it would be nice if you smokers would consider those of us who choose not to partake.
by smoking wherever you deem necessary, you force us, the non-smokers, into breathing your second hand smoke.
it IS bad enough that we have to breathe all the other crud in the air....you folks just add to it.
oh, and don't forget....we non-smokers help to pay for your habits when after 10, 20, or 50 years of smoking, you require specialized medical care that dings our insurance too. kinda like wal mart saying "we pass along what the shoplifters take to you folks in price increases".
and your reference to physics was comical at best...how about this. it's not the drunk driver who kills people, it's the car and the roadways fault..the driver was only steering, or not

Posted by Penny (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The overwhelming majority of scientists and medical professionals agree that smoking and seond hand smoke do indeed shorten the lifespan. However, even if you are lucky enough to have good genetics and can avoid lung cancer, heart disease, lung disease etc, you should be aware that smoking has also been shown to cause impotence. Oh well, there's always the little blue pill, I suppose.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dhcc66: I, too, am one of those "proud smokers in here" and I don't infringe on your rights or cost you a cent. I don't smoke in restaurants: I am there to eat, not smoke, and I don't want to offend non-smokers. I don't smoke in bars or taverns because I don't drink and have not been in a bar in 30 years. And, I'm sorry to say, but the last sentence of your last entry made absolutely no sense whatsoever. But then, neither have any of the other anti-smoking vigilante's comments, either.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wasn't going to say anymore about this, but reading Penny's post from last evening and billclinton's post from today has me riled again. I am a nonsmoker. Apparently, you folks must go to different places than I. I have rarely (in fact, I can't think of one) had any trouble with someone sending their smoke into my space. You have made a problem when one didn't exist. It is apparent to me that you strongly believe that smoking is bad, and you are on a mission to stop it. It amazes me how someone like you must think. In an earlier post, netloafer (like me, a nonsmoker) suggested an easy solution that does not require further regulation of our lives (and, incidentally, the lives of business owners). His idea was simple - if you are having a problem with a particular business, don't go there. If there is enough loss of business, the establishment will change it's policy. In the mean time, the rest of us won't try to regulate your life as you are trying to do to others. This is not Stalinist Russia. Devote your energy to something that would help the community, like donating to the animal shelter.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Penny, Penny, Penny. Your desperation is showing. You have resorted to grasping at straws by insinuating men who smoke are impotent. Is there anything you won't say or anyone you won't disrespect to get your way? You are a perky, but pathetic, crusader for moral superiority and elitist political correctness.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't steer or drive smoke. I can't change the direction of the wind or the weight of smoke in air. Get Real!
The drunk driver analogy is so flawed.
1. It is illegal to drive drunk. It is not illegal to smoke.
2. Operating a 2000-4000 pound vehicle is nothing like putting your hand to your mouth and breathing.
3. Drunk drivers kill people quickly and painfully, when they kill people at all. Second hand smoke only supposedly harms people over long periods of time, and never directly kills them. It is the exposure that supposedly increases the chances for something else to kill them.
4. You can not choose to not be struck and killed by a drunk driver. You can choose to stay away from second hand smoke.

Additionally, I don't have Vietnam era agent orange related diseases, but I am paying for them to be treated. I'm not a chronic alcoholic with liver disease, but I'm praying to treat them. I'm not an illegal immigrant, but I'm paying to treat their ailments. I don't gorge myself on food and get Type 2 diabetes, but I'm paying for those that do. My point is, we all pay in. Smokers and non-smokers alike. We have no control over where our premiums or medicaire taxes are going.
I'm willing to bet that dhcc66 didn't follow a single link I posted previous to his/hers. Nor will anybody else. If anyone does they will see that the damage is a moot point. Some people say its harmful, some say it isn't. You are being led like cattle. The prod is fear. People are preying on your fear and odor preferences to make you maleable and dumb. Educate yourselves. Read studies on the subject from both sides. Make up your own minds. Don't ban something just because you someone told you it was the right thing to do.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

see bj, you are not the problem. you are responsible about what you do. i don't think that anybody would have a problem if all smokers do what you do. thank you for your consideration.

as for the drunk driver comment. it was only in jest to outsider's physics comment about second hand smoke not being the smoker's fault.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jayhawker: Like you, I am going to say nothing more about this lame topic. Why? Because you just said it all in your post above. Your perception of the problem and solution to same is dead on. I hope all who have contributed to this discussion read what you wrote with an open, and unbiased, mind.

You have revealed that a handful of self-perceived socially superior elitists are trying to initiate a ban on a problem that does not exist in order to force their values upon others.

Thank you, Jayhawker. You are the voice of reason.

Posted by Penny (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bj, I was just exercising that sense of humor, I thought it was funny. Actually, I was just trying to see if anyone was really reading these posts before reacting, guess you at least read that one sentence, does tend to get your attention, huh? I'm not on any sort or crusade, moral or otherwise. And really, "perky", that's priceless.

Posted by billclinton (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Outsider J,

For every website/article you find that claims second-hand smoke is not damaging, I will show you three that do.

BJ,

I wish every smoker were like you. That is the considerate thing to do and there wouldn't be a problem if more smokers felt the same way.

I am not on a crusade to end smoking. But I am on a crusade to end smoking in public places.

Several studies have shown that smoking-bans have actually increased business and decreased the amount of smokers. Maybe I am wrong, but I would be willing to bet that many smokers wish that they were not ($$$).

Call me selfish for wanting to enjoy a meal or an evening on the town without subduing myself to second-hand smoke. But, there are other unselfish reasons for a smoking-ban.

God, this is like debating politics. No one ever wins.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is a public place is another huge problem as mentioned before in this forum.
The following is taken from a discussion about the same issue in Wisconsin.

"A tavern or restaurant is not public property. The owner of private property sets the rules. Take that power away and property rights are gutted."

"Business owners decide what to offer the public so they can survive and, hopefully, prosper. It is up to customers or potential employees to decide to go there or not. They have the right to go to smoke-free businesses but--they do not have a right to impose a no smoking policy on someone else's property. If they did, they would be the owners. Or, if the City makes the rules, the City should be the owner."

"Organized and financed arrogant anti-smokers believe that they have a right to smoke-free air wherever they happen to roam. That just is not so anymore than smokers having a right to smoke anywhere they want. Anti-smokers have a right to avoid smoky places, organize boycotts, open smoke-free businesses. But, they have no right to tell private property owners what rules they must enforce on the premises. And, it is a morally bankrupt policy to experiment with the freedom of smokers and the livelihood of small business operators. BreatheFree followers have no appreciation for the principles that nourish a free society.."

Billclinton-- You're on. I have posted 3 study related links above about the second hand smoke myth. While I can't find them I posted about 4 or5 more on another thread. We'll call it 4 to be fair. So thats 7. Can you produce 21 separate study related articles saying that second hand smoke is a killer. There has to be one stipulation though. None of yours can reference or use the 1992 EPA study as proof, since it was vacated and declared null and void by a federal judge.

If you are interested in knowing more about the myth, I would encourage you to look up the study done by the British Journal of Medicine that followed California smokers for 39 years, and did not come up with one harmful effect of their second hand smoke on any of their family members or co-workers.

I look forward to reading your articles.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that you have identified perhaps the most important issue in all of this, OutsiderJ, and that is the property rights of the business owners. It is not just the personal rights of smokers and nonsmokers at issue, it is one of the most fundamental of all rights that Americans have, which is private ownership of property. The market place is perfectly capable of dealing with this issue, as it has for thousands and thousands of issues since our founding. The business owners will deal with this in a way that reflects what its patrons want, without nary a governmental interference in anyone's lives. I know that this will frustrate the banners' true agenda (making smokers second class citizens), but it will reflect the public's attitude and not just that of a small, but vocal, politically correct minority intent on imposing its will on everyone.

(Bjnemp, thanks for the compliment.)

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This may be my favorite article about second hand smoke.
http://www.antibrains.com/shs.html

That's 24 you owe me now billclinton...

While I hate the "second hand smoke is bad" line when it can't be proven. It really is a freedom issue.
thanks jayhawker.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is a pretty good one. Although it is very technical, it does show the problems with even identifying the harmful chemicals and their amounts, as well as their effects, in second hand smoke.
Pay particular attention to page 11; complete paragraphs 3 and 4.
http://www.data-yard.net/science/ets_oth...

I would like to note that I have never said that second hand smoke is not harmful. I have only said that it can not be 100% proven that it is. The links I post here are merely to show that none of the "experts" knows any better than the rest of us if SHS is a health risk.

Posted by Penny (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Outsider, I'm no billclinton, but I couldn't resist the gauntlet. Here are several of the studies that you requested, not 21 because I'm tired of this, but enough that you get the point. These are all recent studies. I challenge you to look them up and read what they have to say. Also look at the actual study in the British Journal of Medicine that you refer to. What you report (via an opinion website) is not accurate.

Sundstrom, P.; Nystrom, L.; Hallmans, G., "Smoke exposure increases the risk for multiple sclerosis," European Journal of Neurology 15(6): 579-583, June 2008.

Slattery, M.L., "Active and passive smoking, IL6 , ESR1, and breast cancer risk," Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 109(1), May 2008.

Clark, III, J.D.; Wilkinson, J.D.; LeBlanc, W.G.; Dietz, N.A.; Arheart, K.L.; Fleming, L.E.; Lee, D.J., "Inflammatory markers and secondhand tobacco smoke exposure among U.S. workers," American Journal of Industrial Medicine [Epub ahead of print], May 14, 2008.

Heiss, C.; Amabile, N.; Lee, A.C.; Real, W.M.; Schick, S.F.; Lao, D.; Wong, M.L.; Jahn, S.; Angeli, F.S.; Minasi, P.; Springer, M.L.: Hammond, S.K.; Glantz, S.A.; Grossman, W.; Balmes, J.R.; Yeghiazarians, Y., "Brief secondhand smoke exposure depresses endothelial progenitor cells activity and endothelial function: sustained vascular injury and blunted nitric oxide production," Journal of the American College of Cardiology 51(18): 1760-1771, May 6, 2008.

Vasselli, S.; Papini, P.; Gaelone, D.; Spizzichino, L.; De Campora, E.; Gnavi, R.; Saitto, C.; Laurendi, G.; Binkin, N., "Reduction incidence of myocardial infarction associated with a national legislative ban on smoking," Minerva Cardioangiology 56(2): 197-203, April 2008.

(cont)

Posted by Penny (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Al-Delaimy, W.K.; Stampfer, M.J.; Manson, J.E.; Willett, W.C., "Toenail nicotine levels as predictors of coronary heart disease among women," American Journal of Epidemiology [Epub ahead of print], April 7, 2008.

Peppone, L.J.; Mahoney, M.C.; Cummings, K.M.; Michalek, A.M.; Reid, M.E.; Moysich, K.B.; Hyland, A., "Colorectal cancer occurs earlier in those exposed to tobacco smoke: implications for screening," Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology [Epub ahead of print], February 9, 2008

Collaco, J.M.; Vanscoy, L.; Bremer, L.; McDougal, K.; Blackman, S.M.; Bowers, A.; Naughton, K.; Jennings, J.; Ellen, J.; Cutting, G.R., "Interactions between secondhand smoke and genes that affect cystic fibrosis lung disease," Journal of the American Medical Association 299(4): 417-424, January 30, 2008.

Asomaning, K.; Miller, D.P.; Liu, G.; Wain, J.C.; Lynch, T.J.; Su, L.; Christiani, D.C., "Second hand smoke, age of exposure and lung cancer risk," Lung Cancer [Epub ahead of print], January 7, 2008.

Stanbury, M.; Chester, D.; Hanna, E.A.; Rosenman, K.D., "How many deaths will it take? A death from asthma associated with work-related environmental tobacco smoke," American Journal of Industrial Medicine [Epub ahead of print], December 7, 2007.

Johnson, K.C.; Glantz, S.A., "Evidence secondhand smoke causes breast cancer in 2005 stronger than for lung cancer in 1986," Preventive Medicine [Epub ahead of print]., December 4, 2007.

Seo, D.; Torabi, M.R., "Reduced admissions for acute myocardial infarction associated with a public smoking ban: matched controlled study," Journal of Drug Education 37(3): 217-226, 2007.

Happy reading!

Posted by billclinton (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OutsiderJ,

You fail to acknowledge that the 1998 ruling that rejected the EPA's 1992 study was later appealed and overturned in 2002. Or, maybe you didn't know that because your articles fail to mention it.

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:eOa...

I believe this link (hopefully it works) will explain.

I think we can all agree (at least I hope) that both FHS and SHS are not healthy. A smoking-ban would benefit everyone--including businesses.

I will admit... the private ownership argument is a strong one and a valid one. In my 'elitist' opinion, however, health issues should trump this.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Penny...
Thanks for the reading. I did not go word for word. I admit it, and thankfully your articles could be found in one place. These prove my point exactly. You came up with page after page of things saying that second hand smoke is bad. I came up with page after page of things that say it isn't. No one can be right or wrong. You could say mine are opinion more than science. I could say yours are mostly based on epidemiological evidence and questionaires, which are notoriously inaccurate. (http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epid.html)
It is exactly what I was attempting to show.
Since there is no "real" answer to the question of a health risk. Wouldn't a ban be premature. With the health risk eliminated, wouldn't it be a matter of preference. With the health risk eliminated isn't the whole thing a matter of property rights and the rights of business owners to cater to whomever they please. Anti smoking groups want to make it about health. I think Penny and I have clearly shown that it is not about health at all, since no one can claim to be 100% right. It is about property rights. Anti smoking groups know this, and they can't refute property rights or property owner's rights, so they make it about health. Which shows that all it is as jayhawker pointed out, a way to make a group of people second hand, and demonize their choices. An "I don't like smoke, so no one should smoke" campaign.
This is facism. It is an "I know what's best for everybody" attitude. One that comes purely from not liking the choices of others and wanting to take that choice away from them to satisfy a need for power. It took me a long time and a lot of posting before I got the help I needed to show what this campaign is really all about. Since that is done, I will retire on the entire issue. Let the chips fall where they may. If there is a ban, I will be there to ask you, "What's next?"
And when the next ban comes, it may be something the non-smokers love. Then I will certainly be there to say, "I told you so."

Posted by Penny (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who is dave hitt and why do you keep quoting him? I'll take "epidemiological evidence" over "Dave's opinion" anyday.
But it is obvious that if even 83 pages of "epidemiological evidence" from reputable studies done all over the world by some of the greatest minds in medicine won't convince you that it is completely and totally about health, then nothing will. So, I agree to disagree and will continue to be in favor of a Clean Air Ordinance for the City and will also support the State one as well.

Posted by billclinton (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Outsider J,

But SHS has been scientifically proven to be unhealthy.

Sorry, I won't beat a dead horse. I also call a truce and acknowledge that the ownership argument is valid.

I am strongly against smoking in restaurants and public venues. I also believe in progressivism. Call it fascism if you will.

I understand your arguments and agree to disagree :)

I do hope you looked at the article I posted and realize that the 1992 EPA studies do in fact stand.

Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Geatest minds of medicine? I'll wager you've never heard of any of those researchers anymore than I have. Are you really qualified to make a statement like that. Because someone did a study and wrote and article, does that make one of the best there is?

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

see, it's like telling a teenager that something is bad. smokers will come up with ANY argument to further their habits. like i said above, just don't subject me to your smoke.
guess you wouldn't argue too much about putting one of those coal fired "LEGAL" power plants in your backyard either, would you outsider? if you want to, i know a few companies who are looking for a place to put their plants. surely you wouldn't mind a little extra "legal" coal smoke in your backyard would you?

Posted by Penny (anonymous) on July 18, 2008 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, Outsider, I have heard of some of them, and have actually read some of the studies in their original publications, namely the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Most of the foreign ones are unknown to me, but I don't discount their validity just because they are from other countries. Looking at the way the studies were conducted and at the credentials of those who ran the studies leads me to believe they are more credible than "Dave's opinion".

Posted by emporialifer (anonymous) on July 21, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I read this today and wanted to share as something to think about (I'm sure I'll get hammered about the political tendency it has, but check it out with an open mind):

"Socialism is a creeping cancer whereby self-serving governments get control of the economy and society, over-regulate it, and suffocate it. It happens in small steps, like the frog that was put in a pan of cold water on the stove - he didn't notice the gradual temperature increase and got cooked. Dear readers, we are being cooked as socialism encroaches on us by gradual degrees"

Posted by shadou (anonymous) on July 25, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Most folks drive to the bar. Quite possibly the emitted pollution from their car is even worse than the "second hand "smoke. Thus, don't drive and don't go to the bar (and don't take your kids) if you wish to avoid pollution (which you can't anyway). Stay in the 'hood and visit with the neighbors!

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Everyone knows where I stand on this. I am adamantly opposed. I do have to say, though, that I am disappointed in some of the posts that personally attack Mrs. Walters. I totally agree that she is misguided, doesn't appreciate American freedom or the free market system. I do not support her for the County Commission seat that she is running for, even though I am a strong Republican. slvrnblck posted earlier today, and even though I think that he supports this measure, I fully agree with him that those who post rude comments only reflect poorly on the writer and his/her cause.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on July 29, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll agree with jayhawker! Look, you may not like what Mrs. Walters or others associated with EDC like to say, but it is no reason to attack them or their families personally. Debate the ideas they propose all you like, but the personal attacks should stop. If everyone that wanted to do something in Emporia was subjected to public scrutiny of their personal lives, I doubt anything would get done in this town. And, I doubt many of us can look back through the totality of our lives without seeing a single mistake made personally or by a member of our families. Let's stick to the topic at hand.

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on August 22, 2008 at 6:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We've now moved comments here from a three-part series:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2008/...

http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2008/...

http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2008/...

Posted by create (anonymous) on August 22, 2008 at 7:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Now I am corn-fussed. Why not start with a clean page here? The last comment was not on July 29, it was Bj's at 11:30 last night. Can we have a clean page please, Gwen?

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on August 22, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You betcha. I'll fix the links in the other stories. It'll take a few minutes, but I'll get it there.

Gwen